University of Wollongong Thesis Collections

University of Wollongong Thesis Collection

University of Wollongong Year

Does emotional intelligence play an

important role in leadership effectiveness?

David RoseteUniversity of Wollongong

Rosete, David, Does emotional intelligence play an important role in leadership ef-fectiveness? PhD thesis, Department of Psychology, University of Wollongong, 2007.http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/636

This paper is posted at Research Online.

http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/636

DOES EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN

LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS?

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for award of the degree

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

From

THE UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG

By

DAVID ROSETE

MPsych (Organisational) University of New South Wales

BA (Hons) University of Wollongong

Organisational Psychology

February 2007

ii

Certification

I, David Rosete, declare that this thesis, submitted in fulfilment of the

requirements for the award of Doctor of Philosophy, in the Department of

Psychology, University of Wollongong, is wholly my own work unless

otherwise referenced or acknowledged. The document has not been

submitted for qualifications at any other academic institution.

David Rosete

February 2007

iii

Dedication

Esta disertación está dedicada a mi madre, María del Carmen Ramírez

Rodríguez, la persona que me inculcó la fortaleza y el ánimo para tener éxito

en mis estudios y en mi vida.

iv

Table of Contents

Certificate ...........................................................................................................ii

Dedication.......................................................................................................... iii

List of tables.......................................................................................................vi

List of figures ................................................................................................... viii

List of abbreviations............................................................................................ix

List of appendixes............................................................................................... x

Abstract .............................................................................................................xi

Acknowledgments............................................................................................. xiii

Peer review publications arising from this thesis ...................................................xv

International conference proceedings arising from this thesis ............................... xvi

Chapter 1 – Introduction, Purpose and Arrangement of Chapters ............... 1

Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1

What do we know about the characteristics of an effective leader? ......................... 2

Purpose ............................................................................................................. 6

Arrangement of chapters ..................................................................................... 7

Chapter 2 – Review of the Literature............................................................. 9

Defining and measuring leadership....................................................................... 9

Cognitive intelligence and personality as predictors of leadership .......................... 17

Emergence of the emotional intelligences concept ............................................... 30

Ability based theory of emotional intelligence ...................................................... 35

Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT™............................................ 38

Mixed models of emotional intelligence............................................................... 43

Measuring emotional intelligence with the SUEIT................................................. 50

Leadership effectiveness and emotional intelligence............................................. 52

Chapter 3 – Study I....................................................................................... 59

Statement of the problem and research hypotheses............................................. 59

Ability based measure of emotional intelligence – relationship with personality

and intelligence ................................................................................................ 60

Method ............................................................................................................ 62

Results............................................................................................................. 65

v

Discussion........................................................................................................ 74

Chapter 4 – Study II ..................................................................................... 78

Statement of the problem and research hypotheses............................................. 78

Method ............................................................................................................ 85

Results............................................................................................................. 96

Discussion.......................................................................................................130

Chapter 5 – General Discussion...................................................................135

Ability based emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness .........................135

Mixed models of emotional intelligence..............................................................147

Emotional intelligences with verbal, performance and reasoning ability.................151

Applying emotional intelligence to the workplace................................................153

Chapter 6 – Contributions of the Research, Limitations and Future

Research.......................................................................................................159

Contributions of the research............................................................................159

Limitations and Future research directions .........................................................161

References....................................................................................................165

List of Tables

Table 1 Comparison of the leading Five Factor Models of personality .................23

Table 2 Findings of recent research on leader traits or skills associated with

effective leadership............................................................................29

Table 3 Overview of the four-branch model of emotional intelligence.................39

Table 4 Structure of the MSCEIT™..................................................................40

Table 5 Comparison of mixed models of emotional intelligence .........................45

Table 6 Correlations coefficients between the EI, personality and cognitive

intelligence with performance management ratings ..............................67

Table 7 Correlations coefficients between the MSCEIT™ total and branch

scores with multi-rater leadership feedback ratings ..............................69

Table 8 Correlations coefficients between the 16PF primary and global

factors and MSCEIT™ ........................................................................71

Table 9 Correlations coefficients between EI and cognitive ability ......................72

Table 10 Stepwise regression fit – Achieves business outcomes ratings ...............73

Table 11 Stepwise regression fit – Effective interpersonal behaviours ratings .......74

Table 12 Descriptive statistics for the MSCEIT™.................................................98

Table 13 Pearson correlations among the MSCEIT™...........................................99

Table 14 Descriptive statistics for the SUEIT factors ...........................................102

Table 15 Pearson correlations among the SUEIT factors .....................................103

Table 16 Descriptive statistics for the 16PF primary factors.................................105

Table 17 Pearson correlations among the 16PF primary factors...........................106

Table 18 Correlation coefficients between the MSCEIT™, SUEIT, personality,

reasoning ability and performance management rating .........................109

Table 19 Correlation coefficients between 16PF global factors and SUEIT ............112

Table 20 Correlation coefficients between 16PF primary factors and SUEIT ..........113

Table 21 Correlation coefficients between 16PF global factors and MSCEIT™ .......114

Table 22 Correlation coefficients between 16PF primary factors and MSCEIT™.....115

Table 23 Correlation coefficients between reasoning ability and MSCEIT™ ...........117

Table 24 Correlation coefficients between reasoning ability and SUEIT ................117

Table 25 Correlation coefficients between EI measures (Ability versus Self-

Report) .............................................................................................118

vii

Table 26 Hierarchical regression analysis of reasoning ability, five global

personality factors and ability-based EI with achieves business

outcomes performance measure .........................................................120

Table 27 Hierarchical regression analysis of reasoning ability, five global

personality factors and self-report EI with achieves business

outcomes performance measure .........................................................122

Table 28 Hierarchical regression analysis of reasoning ability, five global

personality factors and ability-based EI with effective interpersonal

behaviours performance measure .......................................................124

Table 29 Hierarchical regression analysis of reasoning ability, five global

personality factors and self-report EI with effective interpersonal

behaviours performance measure .......................................................126

Table 30 Hierarchical regression analysis of reasoning ability, five global

personality factors, self-report EI and ability-based EI with effective

interpersonal behaviours performance measure ...................................128

Table 31 Hierarchical regression analysis of reasoning ability, five global

personality factors, self-report EI and ability-based EI with effective

interpersonal behaviours performance measure ...................................129

Table 32 Emotional Intelligence processes and leadership capability

framework ........................................................................................145

viii

List of Figures

Figure 1 A four-branch model of the skills involved in EI ................................ 36

Figure 2 Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) leadership capability

framework .................................................................................... 91

Figure 3 Illustration of the performance management cycle ........................... 94

ix

List of Abbreviations

ABO Achieves Business Outcomes

APS Australian Public Service

APSC Australian Public Service Commission

AR Achieves Results

CI Communicates with Influence

CPWR Cultivates Productive Working Relationships

ECI Emotional Competency Inventory

EI Emotional Intelligence

EIB Effective Interpersonal Behaviours

EIS Emotional Intelligence Scale

EPDI Exemplifies Personal Drive and Integrity

EQi Emotional Quotient Inventory

GMA General Mental Ability

IQ Intelligent Quotient

MAC Management Advisory Committee

MEIS Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale

MSCEIT Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test

PDA Performance Development Agreement

PELC Perspectives on Executive Leadership Capabilities

SELCF Senior Executive Leadership Capability Framework

SST Shapes Strategic Thinking

SUEIT Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test

TAS-20 Toronto Alexithymia Scale-II

TMMS Trait Meta Mood Scale

WASI Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence

16PF Sixteen Personality Factor

x

List of Appendixes

Appendix A Consent form .............................................................................. 184

Appendix B Demographic form....................................................................... 185

Appendix C Example of a participants feedback report ..................................... 187

Appendix D Applying utility analysis to an ability-based measure of EI for the

purpose of selection..................................................................... 208

xi

Abstract

Does Emotional Intelligence (EI) make someone a better leader? I utilised a

cross-sectional study to examine the relationships between leadership

effectiveness and tests of EI, cognitive intelligence, and personality. The study

consisted of two parts.

In the first study, I examined the relationship between an ability

measure of emotional intelligence, the Big Five personality factors, and

cognitive intelligence with leadership effectiveness. In the study, 41 executives

from a large Australian Public Service organisation completed a battery of

psychological tests, which included the Mayer Salovey Caruso Emotional

Intelligence Test (MSCEIT™), the Sixteen Personality Factor (16PF)

questionnaire, and the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI).

Leadership effectiveness was assessed using performance management ratings

(i.e., participants were scored on their ability to achieve business outcomes and

display effective interpersonal behaviours), and a multi-rater leadership

measure scored by each leader’s subordinates and their direct manager (N =

149). Correlational analyses revealed that higher emotional intelligence was

associated with higher leadership effectiveness.

Study II explored the link between an ability measure of EI and

leadership effectiveness in more detail. This study extended that of study I by

introducing a self-report EI measure and by examining the links between

primary personality factors and EI. One hundred and twenty two executives

from a large Australian Public Service organisation participated in the study.

Executives completed a battery of measures similar to those in study one, with

xii

the addition of the Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT).

Participants also submitted their performance management results. The

findings indicated that the executives who achieved superior business outcomes

scored higher on the EI ability test. Importantly, the ability measure of EI (the

MSCEIT™) predicted effective leadership over and above well-established

workplace measures such as reasoning ability and personality. In contrast, self-

reported measures of EI (the SUEIT) had little to offer over and above these

measures of personality and reasoning.

In both studies, an analysis of the individual ability EI subscales revealed

that the most important subscale was Perceiving Emotions. A leader who is

skilled in perceiving emotion is described as someone who knows what people

feel, reads people accurately, is good at recognising their own feelings and can

express their feelings appropriately. These skills may be important because

they allow a leader to accurately capture important social data around them. In

particular, it offers the ability to “read between the lines” when dealing with

people. These results have important implications on how we should select and

develop executives.

xiii

Acknowledgement

When I undertook to complete a PhD, I had set myself three goals. These

included the publication of at least one research paper in a journal, the

presentation of my work at an international conference, and the completion of

my actual thesis. This dissertation marks the completion of my third goal, the

other two been successfully achieved over the past few years. In many ways, I

have exceeded my original goals by publishing several papers and presenting

my work at a number of international conferences. I include these

accomplishments to emphasise my deep gratitude to the one person who made

this all possible, my supervisor Dr Joseph Ciarrochi. His advice and assistance

throughout my journey has been instrumental to me accomplishing my goals.

Thank you for being a constant source of advice, encouragement, and

friendship throughout my studies.

I would also like to thank all those participants from the Australian Public

Service who took time to complete the battery of psychological tests. I would

also like to thank my workplace managers, Bruce and Robyn, who, over the

course of my PhD, not only gave me the time and space to complete my

studies, but were also the champions of my ideas and research within the

workplace. Thank you for believing in my work.

I would also like to thank Dr David R Caruso for providing me with a

copy of a MSCEIT™ report template that enabled me to give quality feedback

back to my participants. Professor Con Stough and Mr. Luke Downey from the

Swinburne Centre for Neuropsychology for permission to use the SUEIT and

xiv

assistance in scoring the SUEIT. Dr Steven J. Stein from Multi-Health Systems

Inc. for granting research access to use the MSCEIT™.

The journey to completing a PhD part-time is long, and one that needs

to be juggled with other life commitments. The person who has been the

greatest supporter of my work over the life of my studies was my wife

Christina. Thank you for your patience, understanding, and emotional support

to completing this dissertation.

Finally, I would like to thank my two princesses, Melanie and Jasmine,

who were both born during the time of my dissertation. They have taught me

so much, and in their own way, have provided me with a real open window on

what it means to be emotionally intelligent.

xv

Peer Reviewed Publications Arising From This Thesis

Rosete, D., and Ciarrochi, J. (2005). Emotional intelligence and its relationship

to workplace performance outcomes of leadership effectiveness.

Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 26(5), pp. 388-399.

Rosete, D., and Ciarrochi, J. (2007). A Critical Evaluation of the Role of

Emotional Intelligence in Leadership Effectiveness. Manuscript submitted

for publication.

xvi

International Conference Proceedings Arising From This Thesis

Rosete, D. (2004) A leader’s profile – what attributes make an effective leader?

4th International Test Users’ Conference, Melbourne, July 19-20, ACER,

pp 50-55.

Rosete, D. (2005) A leaders edge – what attributes make an effective leader?

5th Annual Emotional Intelligence Conference, Netherlands, June 12-14.

Rosete, D. (2006) Does emotional intelligence make someone a better leader?

26th International Congress of Applied Psychology Conference, Athens,

July 16-21.

1

CHAPTER 1

Introduction, Purpose and Arrangements of Chapters

Introduction

What makes a good leader? This has been a prominent question in the

management literature for the past seven decades (Aditya & House, 2002;

Bass, 1985). While there is a large volume of cumulative knowledge on

leadership, there are still many questions that are yet to be answered with

regard to the practice of leadership within an organisational setting.

Nevertheless, this does not stop leadership consulting firms from offering

approaches (in some cases poorly thought through approaches) to leadership

development. This is perhaps distressing if one considers that leadership

training is a $US45 billion business within the United States alone (Fulmer,

1997). Increasingly, organisations are becoming aware that they should rely on

research to understand how best to select and develop leaders (Benson &

Morrigan, 2000).

There is also growing evidence that today’s executives are derailing from

their career paths at record-high rates of up to 50 percent. This suggests that

organisations need to focus more efforts on accurately identifying and selecting

people with leadership potential (Blohowiak, 2003; Corporate Leadership

Council, 2003).

The development or the selection of leaders that will fulfil the promise of

effectively executing organisational business outcomes is no small feat. While

2

there appears to be an overabundance of leadership research, there is still

much we do not know about why some people are effective leaders (Higgs,

2003; Higgs and Rowland, 2000; Hogan, Curphy and Hogan 1994; Kets de

Vries, 1993).

What do we know about the characteristics of an effective leader?

The research suggests that testing for cognitive ability in potential leaders is

essential, as leaders need to be able to gather, integrate, and analyse

information in order to develop solutions and solve complex problems

(Corporate Leadership Council, 2003). Leaders are also expected to be able to

adapt to changing business conditions and respond accordingly (Kirkpatrick &

Locke, 1991). Even though the link between leadership and cognitive

intelligence is well established, its relationship is not without its share of

problems. Riggio (2002) suggests that there have been prominent leaders with

average (and perhaps below average) intelligence. Many of our greatest minds

are in sciences, research, and education, and they neither obtain nor pursue

positions of leadership. Sternberg (2002) also notes that the predictive value of

intelligence for leadership may vary across situations and in many cases is not

very high. Most organisations can recount stories of highly intelligent

executives who often perform poorly in the workplace indicating that general

intelligence by itself is not the only predictor of leadership performance and

that other psychological constructs like personality may play a role (Sternberg,

2002).

3

In regards to personality, research has shown that leaders in certain

environments who display low anxiety are more likely to behave calmly,

consistently, and predictably (see for example Barrick & Mount, 1991). This

means that on-the-job performance is likely to be higher for leaders with lower

anxiety, as these leaders are more likely to have stable interpersonal

relationships and be efficient in crisis management (Corporate Leadership

Council, 2003). Previous personality research has also shown that those

executives demonstrating high emotional stability (i.e. they were mature, faced

reality, or were calm) and low vigilance (i.e. they were trusting, accepting of

conditions, and easy to get on with) were people who generally exhibited

leadership potential (Dee-Burnett, Johns, Russell & Mead 1997). Research

suggests that optimism may also influence performance across a variety of

organisational settings (McColl-Kennedy & Anderson, 2002). Another

personality variable, conscientiousness, appears to relate to performance

outcomes (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Stogdill, 1974).

In essence, intelligence and personality traits have had some limited

success in being able to predict effective leadership, with no single variable or

even cluster of variables shown to be related to leadership across a variety of

situations (Chemers, 2000; Higgs, 2003). While cognitive ability and

personality traits appear to play a role in accounting for why some leaders are

more effective than others, we should note that cognitive intelligence predicts,

at best, up to 20%, and personality traits only predict about 10% of what

makes an effective leader. This leaves a considerable amount of variance

unexplained.

4

Perhaps the emerging construct of emotional intelligence (EI) offers us

an additional insight into why some leaders excel while others fall short. Some

of the top business people who work in the realm of organisational psychology

assert extraordinary claims that EI is perhaps the most important predictor of

leadership performance, accounting for up to 80% of the previously

unaccounted variance in effective leadership (Goleman, 1998; McKee, 2005).

Such claims have assisted to popularise the concept of EI in organisational

settings, as business people and researchers alike look to explain differential

attainment of occupational successes which cannot be adequately explained by

either cognitive intelligence or personality traits (Zeidner, Matthews & Roberts,

2004)

After more than 15 years of research, the concept of EI is still generating

extraordinary interest in both the media and academic research. For example,

a web search on the term “emotional intelligence” resulted in over 11 million

URLs. In addition, a title search of various scientific databases resulted in over

800 books and journal articles1. A brief look at the EI literature suggests that

there is still much controversy regarding how best to define and measure EI.

However, it does appear that the concept of EI is worthy of research that

shows every indication that it can be predictive of performance (Rooy &

Viswesvaran, 2004).

Despite the popular idea that EI is essential to leadership, there has

been little empirical research to support this link. This is perhaps surprising as

1 A search using Google and of the ABI, Emerald and PsychInfo databases reveals 11,500,000 and 818 entries respectively for the period up to January 2006.

5

one would expect a leader’s ability to understand and manage emotions would

contribute to their effectiveness as leaders. Leaders are often required to

develop a collective sense of goals and objectives, and develop strategies on

how to go about achieving them. Theoretically, leaders can use their emotions

to enhance their information processing of the strengths, opportunities,

weaknesses, and threats that face their organisations. Similarly, leaders can

use their awareness of emotions to facilitate an understanding of how their

subordinates are feeling, and thus use this information to influence their

subordinates’ emotions, so they are more receptive and supportive of the

organisation’s goals (George, 2000). They may also use emotion management

skills to deal effectively with difficult emotions such as frustration and anger.

For example, they may be better able to prevent such states from adversely

influencing how they treat their employees, or better manage difficult

timeframes or deadlines.

In summary, there has been considerable speculation regarding the

relationship between EI and leadership effectiveness. Important empirical

questions remain. For example, does EI play an important role in leadership

effectiveness? Is high EI a trait of effective leaders? Can EI predict

performance beyond established measures like intelligence and personalty?

This dissertation explores some of these empirical questions.

6

Purpose

The intent of the dissertation was to investigate whether EI plays an important

role in leadership effectiveness. The available EI leadership research supports

the hypothesis that self-reported EI is correlated to self-reported leadership

style. While research based on self-reported leadership style is important, it

does not establish whether EI is related to objective (or non-self-report)

measures of leadership effectiveness, such as manager ratings or measures of

actual business unit performance.

In exploring the relationship between EI and objective measures of

leadership effectiveness, a number of other questions were also examined,

including (but not limited to):

Is EI a significant characteristic of successful leadership?

How much do EI measures overlap with pre-existing measures? For

example, does it correlate highly with the well-established “Big Five”

personality dimensions: Neuroticism, Extroversion, Openness,

Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness? Does it correlate with

cognitive ability measures?

Are there any differences in the utility of ability-based EI measures

and self-report EI measures? That is, which of these measure types

predict the most variance in leadership effectiveness? In addition,

which of these measure types predict the unique variance, after

controlling for other individual difference variables?

7

The ability-based EI measure, the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional

Intelligence Test (MSCEIT™) and the self-report EI measure, the Swinburne

University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT) are two particular tools that

seem to show real promise in an applied setting. This study also examines the

reliability and validity of these two EI measures.

Arrangement of Chapters

Chapter 2 presents a brief examination of the advancement of leadership

research, cognitive intelligence, and personality. There is a further focus on the

concept of EI with particular emphasis given to both the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso

Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT™) and the Swinburne Emotional

Intelligence Test (SUEIT). The chapter concludes with a review of EI and

leadership research.

Chapter 3 presents the findings of the first study of this dissertation.

This study investigated the relationship between EI, personality, cognitive

intelligence, and leadership effectiveness in senior executives (N = 41) who

completed an ability measure of EI, a measure of personality and a measure of

cognitive ability. By using performance management ratings, and a 360-degree

assessment involving each leader’s subordinates and their direct manager (N =

149) I was able to measure Leadership effectiveness.

Chapter 4 presents the findings of study II, which sought to replicate

and extend the previous study in a larger sample. It examined the link

between an ability measure of EI and two aspects of leadership effectiveness -

8

namely, attainment of business outcomes and the display of leadership

behaviours. This study also administered a measure of personality, reasoning

ability and self-report EI in order to examine the incremental value of ability-EI

over these measures. The sample for study II consisted of 122 senior

executives.

Chapter 5 provides a general discussion of the implications of the

findings, and Chapter 6 provides some conclusions, limitations, and directions

for further research.

9

CHAPTER 2

Review of the Literature

Does EI make someone a better leader? This question has preoccupied many

writers and scientists for the past fifteen years (Higgs, 2003). Many

psychological factors have already been identified in research over the past

century or more as being important to leadership effectiveness, such as

cognitive ability (Sternberg & Vroom, 2002) and conscientiousness (Barrick &

Mount, 1991). With little evidence, people have also proposed that EI is an

important predictor of leadership performance, perhaps the most important

predictor (Goleman, 1998; McKee, 2005). The purpose of this dissertation is to

begin to critically evaluate this claim.

The literature review will first focus on the various definitions and

methods used to measure leadership, with some attention given to the

concepts of cognitive ability and personality as predictors of effective

leadership. Central to this review will be an exploration of the concept of EI,

with particular emphasis given to understanding the relationship between

effective leadership and the prominent EI models.

Defining and Measuring Leadership

While there appears to be an overabundance of leadership research, Chemers

(2000) claims that much of this research is fractured and nothing more than a

confusing set of contradictory findings. We are still no closer to understanding

10

what is required to be an effective leader across various situations or contexts

(Higgs and Rowland, 2000; Hogan et al., 1994; Kets de Vries, 1993). This

conclusion, however, has not discouraged empirical research over the past few

decades that seek to identify the characteristics required to be an effective

leader (Higgs, 2003). This interest is, in part, due to the importance placed on

leadership. Why are leaders so important?

Leadership is about coping with change (Kotter, 2001). Leaders, in

many ways, facilitate change. That is, they understand the need for change,

and are able to identify what has to be accomplish to ensure an organisation

and its people, are motivated to deal successfully with the change. This has

never been more evident than it is now. In recent years, the business world

has become more competitive and more volatile. Changes in computer

technology, diminishing union power, changes in industrial relations policy,

outsourcing of services, more stringent legislation on business activities,

globalisation, and the changing demographics of the workforce have all meant

that leaders need to react to the many factors of change with speed and

efficiency should they hope to lead their organisation successfully through times

of change. Given the importance of leadership on the achievement of

organisational outcomes, the successful implementation of change and the

motivation of employees is an area that still requires considerable research and

review.

The study of leadership stretches over many centuries, although the

“modern” study of leadership is consider as having begun with the trait theories

of leadership in the late 1920s (Higgs and Rowland, 2000). The trait theories

11

of leadership focused on the personality and physical characteristics of leaders.

It included the appearance, energy level, height, gender, personality traits, and

intelligence of both successful and unsuccessful leaders to predict leadership

effectiveness (Chemers, 2000).

Stogdill (1948) conducted a review of 30 years of trait studies (1904 to

1947) and found no consistent list of traits linked to leadership behaviour. He

did however, report that a few traits (most notably intelligence) distinguished

leaders from their followers. The problem was that no cluster or even single

trait was related to leadership across a variety of situations. Stogdill (1948)

suggested that a leaders status, rather than trait factors, were the most

important determinants of effective leadership.

Stogdill (1974) conducted a subsequent review of trait studies published

from 1949 to 1970 and found considerable more traits that were likely to be

relevant to leaders. For example, prominent traits included assertiveness,

persistence, and self-confidence. Even though the results were stronger in his

subsequent review, Stogdill (1974) indicated that there were still no universal

leadership traits. He concluded that the possession of some traits did increase

the likelihood that a leader will be effective, but they did not guarantee

organisational effectiveness. Indeed, an important question that is central to

this dissertation is what constitutes effective leadership.

12

Measuring Effective Leadership

There is little published research concerning what effective leaders actually do.

This is due partly to indices of leadership effectiveness often being hard to

specify, and that a leaders success are frequently affected by factors outside

their own control (Hogan et al., 1994). One method in the EI literature that

appears to be accepted is to equate effective leaders to those demonstrating

transformational leadership behaviours. Transformational leaders are people

that are able to create a vision, communicate this vision, build commitment

amongst subordinates to the vision, and model the vision within the workplace.

In contrast, transactional leaders are managers that maintain the status quo. It

is argued that transformational leaders are able to deal with strategic matters

more efficiently, and, in turn, are able to build commitment in employees, and

are therefore more likely to take an organisation forward (Bass and Avolio,

1990a & 1994). This line of enquiry will typically use a self-report or 360-

degree measure such as the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire developed by

Bass (Bass and Avolio, 1990b) to measure effective leadership.

Other researchers have contended that leadership effectiveness involves

a leader’s ability to influence an organisation’s bottom line. That is, to impact

on the profitability of a business area, the quality of services rendered, or the

ability to meet business outcomes (Hogan et al., 1994). This type of leadership

effectiveness has always been difficult to measure as objective criteria are often

absent (Murensky, 2000). Nevertheless, research is increasingly identifying

different mediums for measuring leadership effectiveness, including

shareholders’ return on investment (Bass, 1990a), actual performance of an

13

organisational unit via manager performance ratings (Hogan et al., 1994), and

more balanced approaches that incorporate non-financial measures such as

customer loyalty (Kaplan & Norton, 1994).

Arvey and Murphy (1998) suggest that the major contributor of an

employee’s worth to the organisation is through work behaviour, and ultimately,

performance. Thus, these should be the factors used in examining a leader’s

effectiveness. Arvey and Murphy also suggest that there is an increased

confidence regarding the use of manager ratings and other subjective appraisal

instruments and formats. There is increased recognition that subjectivity does

not automatically translate into rater error or bias, and that ratings are most

likely valid reflections of true performance, and represent a low-cost mechanism

for evaluating employees. This view is research substantiated with evidence

now demonstrating that manager ratings of employee performance are valid

indicators of actual performance.

For example, Vance, MacCallum, Coovert and Hedge (1998) used

confirmatory factor analysis to support the construct validity of performance

ratings amongst a sample of 256 jet engine mechanics with actual performance

data gathered. Yammarino and Bass (1990) examined 186 officers from the

United States Naval Academy, and their results showed consistent relationships

amongst the leadership measures, and between the leadership and outcome

measures (i.e., ratings by subordinates and superiors).

Viswesvaran, Ones and Schmidt (1996) conducted a meta-analytic study

comparing the reliability of job performance ratings across organisations. There

results showed that performance ratings (both peer and supervisory) are an

14

important method of job performance measurement within organisations. Also,

supervisory ratings appear to have higher reliability than peer ratings.

For this dissertation, leadership effectiveness is defined as the ability of a

senior officer to beneficially impact an organisation’s bottom line (in other

words, to influence the productivity of a business area, the quality of services

rendered, or the ability to meet business outcomes). This view of leadership

fits within the goal setting theory, which aims to align an executive’s work

behaviour with the business strategy (Locke & Latham, 1990).

Within the Australian Public Service (APS), Executive Officers (or

executives) frequently define the goals and objectives that are needed for an

organisation to either meet government and community expectations, or (in the

case of autonomous agencies) to compete successfully. The responsibility of

executives is to ensure that organisational goals or objectives are realised

through the performance management system. The intent of the performance

management system is to focus, assess, and reinforce an executive's work

behaviours towards organisational objectives, thus ensuring that work

behaviours are strategically driven (Waddell, Cummings & Worley, 2004). A

performance appraisal process underpins this performance management

system.

From the perspective of senior management, the central objectives of

the performance appraisal are to identify and highlight the link between an

executive's performance and the agency's goals, and to improve workplace

communications between executives and their immediate staff. Senior

management also aims to ensure that executives, through the performance

15

appraisal process, have a clear appreciation of the tasks that they must

complete, and the level of performance required of them when undertaking

these tasks (Waddell et al., 1994). As the appraisal process measure a leader’s

ability to deliver on business outcomes, it logically provides an opportunity for

researchers to measure leadership effectiveness within an organisational

setting.

Ideally, information from an appraisal process ought to be collaborated

with information obtained via some form of multi-rater feedback process to

assess actual workplace behaviours. This would support Arvey and Murphy's

(1998) suggestion that the major contributor of an employee’s worth to the

organisation is through work behaviour, and ultimately, performance. The

performance appraisal focuses on the performance, while the multi-rater

feedback focuses on behaviours displayed in a work setting.

Leadership behaviours, whether measured through evaluations by peers,

staff, superiors, or customers, are prone to subjective bias if they do not have a

clear and objective standard or a benchmark for comparison (Edwards, Ayres &

Howard, 2003). Within the APS, the Senior Executive Leadership Capability

Framework (SELCF) defines the expected leadership capabilities of senior

officers (Australian Public Service Commission [APSC] 2004a). This framework

also forms the pillar for the annual appraisal discussion between a senior

manager and an executive about leadership behaviours. The SELCF contains

five core capability clusters:

1. Exemplifies personal drive and integrity

16

2. Cultivates productive working relationships

3. Communicates with influence

4. Shapes strategic thinking, and

5. Achieves results

In summary, the research suggests that an effective leader is one who

can possess the ability to influence the bottom line and can demonstrate core

leadership behaviours. We can also look at the research for a working

definition of ‘leadership’ that can not only anchor itself to an organisational and

institutional context, but also reflect the notion of leadership as an individual

quality, thus incorporating the many leadership perspectives.

Edwards et al. (2003) provide one such definition, arguing that

leadership is the “capacity at both the individual and institutional levels to:

identify and define organizational goals and desired outcomes; develop

strategies and plans to achieve those goals and deliver those outcomes; and

guide the organization and motivate its people in reaching those goals and

outcomes” (p. 4). Edwards et al. (2003) further argue that there are

characteristics that are necessary preconditions for an individual to be an

effective leader, such as energy, commitment, persistence, integrity, and a

capacity to inspire others. This view of leadership is consistent with other

definitions of leadership (especially goal setting theories), which reflect the

assumption that leadership involves a process, whereby intentional influence is

exerted by leaders over other people to guide, structure, and facilitate activities

and relationships in organisations (Yukl, 2006). The two psychological

17

constructs that have yielded the most promising findings around leadership

effectiveness have been that of cognitive intelligence and personality (Hogan et

al., 1994)

Cognitive Intelligence and Personality as Predictors of Leadership

There are several studies now published showing that both intelligence and

certain personality dimensions are associated to leadership effectiveness

(Hogan et al., 1994; Howard & Bray, 1990). This section briefly looks at both

constructs as predictors of leadership effectiveness.

Cognitive Intelligence as a Predictor of Leadership Effectiveness

The research of intelligence as a predictor of leadership effectiveness has been

quite stable over the past 100 years (Bass, 1990a; Hunter & Hunter, 1984).

The conclusion from intelligence testing is that effective leaders do possess

moderately higher levels of intellectual capability (Murensky, 2000).

The evolution of intelligence testing began with the work of British

scholar, Sir Francis Galton, in the latter part of the 19th century. Galton spent a

large part of his career attempting to measure simple cognitive processes, like

auditory and sensory abilities, in order to discover the relationship between

heredity and human ability (Brody, 2000). In his book, “Hereditary Genius”

Galton (1869) concluded that success ran in families because great intelligence

was passed from generation to generation via genetic inheritance. However,

18

Galton himself had little success in his endeavours to produce a psychological

intelligence test (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 1989; Martin, 2001).

The breakthrough for intelligence testing came through Spearman’s

(1904) development of the statistical technique of correlation, and the French

psychologist Alfred Binet who, in 1905, along with his colleague Theodore

Simon, published the first useful test of general mental ability to identify

children who would profit from mainstream schooling. Binet discovered that

average students could handle certain tasks that handicapped students could

not. Binet calculated the normal abilities for students at each age, and could

pinpoint how many years a student's mental age was above or below the norm

using a crude scale (Brody, 2000; Martin, 2001).

The idea that a test could determine a child's "mental age" became

enormously popular. Just before World War I, a German psychologist named

Wilhelm Stern suggested a better way of expressing results than by mental age.

Stern focused on the ratio between the subject's chronological age and their

mental age. Therefore, a 10-year-old scoring one year ahead of their

chronological age (110) would be not as significant as a 5-year-old scoring one

year ahead (120). Binet’s work along with Stern’s concept of the intelligence

quotient appeared promising, with these ideas spreading across Europe and

America. It was in America that Binet’s original work appeared to flourish with

the work of people like Lewis Terman (1916). Of significance to EI was Binet’s

view that, while IQ tests could predict academic scores in children, in

subsequent years they provided little prediction as to non-academic outcomes,

or at least significant amounts of variance was still unaccounted for once

19

intelligence was controlled in predicting life outcomes (Bryson, 2004). This

unaccounted variance is one reason EI has gained significant interests in both

the business and research community.

The greatest surge in intelligence testing came in 1917, when America

entered World War I. By the mid-1920’s, many companies began testing

programs to determine who would be hired, promoted, or transferred, and the

scope of intelligence testing was broadened to include tests of achievement,

aptitude, interest, and personality (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 1989). However, the

greatest market for intelligence tests was not organisations, but schools. In the

years, following World War I, practically every school system in the United

States, and much of Europe, began some sort of intelligence scoring program.

The original intelligence tests focused almost exclusively on verbal and

problem solving ability (Martin, 2001) until the pioneer work of David Wechsler

who published a more sophisticated test of adult intelligence, the Wechsler

Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS). His improvements came in the form of

developing scales that were less dependent on a subject’s verbal ability by

adding a non-verbal component. Wechsler also discarded the original

intelligence quotient in favour of a new scoring scheme that revolved around

the normal distribution (Martin, 2001). This model of intelligence and its

assumptions have dominated the intelligence field (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 1989).

The work of intelligence research pioneers was predominately based on

hierarchical models of intelligence (Sternberg, 1990). That is, in analysing the

inter-relationship of scores amongst mental ability tests, researchers discover

the factors of individual differences in intelligence (Davidson & Downing, 2000).

20

For example, one of the most prominent hierarchical models being the theory of

fluid (Gf) and crystallised (Gc) ability (Sternberg, 1990).

One of the most widely cited research studies examining the importance

of cognitive ability and other dimensions of leadership are that of Schmidt and

Hunter (1998). Schmidt and Hunter (1998) statistically summarised a large

body of data collected over the last 85 years relating to selection methods used

in personal and organisational psychology. Their article looked at 19 different

selection processes from the perspective of predicting further job performance

and future learning. They found that cognitive ability tests could obtain a

validity coefficient (“r”) of 0.51. Hermelin and Robertson (2001), in a similar

study of selection methods, found validity coefficients of 0.45 with job

performance.

Bartone, Snook and Tremble (2002) examined a large cohort of US

Military cadets over a 3 to 4 year training period, specifically examining the

influence of cognitive and personality variables on military leadership

performance. Results showed that logical reasoning correlated positively with

leader performance.

Howard and Bray (1990), in a longitudinal study of Bell Systems

managers extending over more than 30 years, found that cognitive ability was

strongly related to career advancement after 20 years.

Hunter (1986), in a review of hundreds of studies examining the

predictive ability of psychological constructs, showed that cognitive ability

predicted performance in all jobs. He argued that general cognitive ability

21

predicts job knowledge (r = .80 for civilian jobs), and job knowledge predicts

job performance (r = .80).

Within this hierarchical view of intelligence sits EI. Mayer, Caruso and

Salovey (2000a, b) proposed that information processing subscales of general

intelligence also deal with emotional processing. This is in stark contrast to trait

personality, which sits outside the conceptual view of intelligence and is another

psychological construct to have dominated the leadership research. Personality

also has a rich history of research and can potentially provide insight into leader

attitudes, motivations, and behavioural tendencies.

Personality as a Predictor of Leadership Effectiveness

The defining of personality itself relies very much on what approach is taken to

study the construct. There are at least three general models to creating an

overall framework of personality that can be used to explain the different levels

of complexity that characterise a person’s personality (Dawda, 1997; Mayer,

2007).

The first, and perhaps the most widely researched model of personality,

is the view that personality consists of psychological traits. In particular, the

dominant personality research taxonomy has been the five-factor model, or Big

Five of personality, which uses a lexical approach to narrow natural language to

standard applicable personality adjectives. Generally, researchers agree that

there are five robust personality factors, which serve as a meaningful taxonomy

22

for classifying personality attributes (Barrick and Mount, 1991, Digman, 1990).

Refer to Table 1 for more details on possible personality taxonomies.

The study of personality traits potentially dates back to the earlier works

of Aristotle, who spoke about dispositions such as modesty and cowardice as

key determinants of moral and immoral behaviour (Matthews, Deary and

Whiteman, 2003). Barrick and Mount (1991) suggest that the modern day

measurement of personality traits based on the Big Five personality

characteristics, began shortly after McDougall (1932) wrote that, “personality

may to advantage be broadly analysed into five distinguishable but separate

factors, namely intellect, character, temperament, disposition, and temper…”

(p. 15).

Like cognitive ability, efforts to measure personality factors evolved

through a number of phases. The introduction of factor analysis to the study of

personality marked a turning point. Cattell (1943, 1945, 1947, 1965, 1987)

applied a factor analytical approach to personality and developed a more

complex taxonomy of individual differences that consisted of 16 primary factors.

These were built, in part, on the earlier work of Allport and Odbert (1936) who

extracted nearly 18,000 potentially useful trait descriptors from Webster’s

dictionary. Tupes and Christal (1992) used Cattell’s earlier work to further

reduce these variables to five factors. Since then, significant amounts of

research to further explain the five-factor taxonomy of personality has

occurred. Two of the most prominent works in that field were Goldberg’s

(1990) ‘Big Five’ and, Costa and McCrae’s (1992) ‘Five Factor Model’. Both are

displayed in Table 1, which also highlights Cattell’s higher order five factors.

23

Table 1

Comparison of the Leading Five Factor Models on Personality

There appears to be some agreement amongst researchers that there

are five primary personality factors. However, as can be seen from table 1,

there is some disagreement about the precise definition of these factors

(Barrick and Mount, 1991). Other problems with the trait taxonomy include

difficulties replicating some of the earlier research (e.g., the work of Cattell),

and the possible exclusion of other universal personality factors (e.g., honesty

or humility) (Block, 1995). There is also a tendency to adopt single-word

adjectives, which makes the five-factor models incapable of describing the

dynamics of personality in organisations, or the variation of personality

characteristics over situations (Block, 1995).

The personality trait approach does, offer insights into the individual

parts of personality, but fails to give any sense of how personality functions as

a total system (Mayer, 2007). The second approach, known as personality

types, suffers from similar problems. It clusters personality traits into similar

groupings that appear to work well together, rather than look at personality

more holistically (Mayer, 2007).

24

Personality Type, or Psychological Type, are terms most commonly

associated with the model of personality development created by Isabel Briggs

Myers, the author of the world's most widely used personality inventory, the

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI) (Myers & McCaulley, 1985). Myers' and

her mother, Katharine Briggs, developed their model and inventory around the

ideas and theories of psychologist Carl Jung, a leading exponent of Gestalt

personality theory (Myers, McCaulley, Quenk & Hammer, 1998).

Jung's theory proposes that, often, what appears as random behaviour

is, in fact, quite systematic and consistent. The apparent randomness is due to

the basic differences in the way people prefer to use their perception and

judgment. According to Jungian theory, then, if people are assumed to differ

systematically in what they perceive and judge, then it may be reasonable to

assume that they will differ accordingly in their reactions, interests, values,

motivations and skills (Myers & McCaulley, 1985).

The MBTI® is a self-report questionnaire concerned with the differences

in the way people perceive and the way they make decisions (Myers &

McCaulley, 1985; Myers, McCaulley, Quenk & Hammer, 1998). The MBTI®

contains four bi-polar scales that can be reported as continuous scores or

reduced to four-letter code or type's. The scales are:

Extraversion-Introversion (EI), designed to reflect whether an

individual is an extravert (oriented primarily toward the outer

world) or an introvert (oriented primarily toward the inner world).

25

Sensing-Intuitive (SN), designed to reflect an individual’s preference

for two opposite ways of acquiring information, or finding out about

things.

Thinking-Feeling (TF), designed to reflect an individual’s preference

between two contrasting ways of judgment.

Judgment-Perception (JP), designed to describe the process an

individual uses primarily in dealing with the outside world (Myers &

McCaulley, 1985).

The various combinations of these preferences yield sixteen possible

combinations called ‘types’. Each individual is classified in terms of four letter

preferences (e.g., ESTJ, INFP, Myers & McCaulley, 1985; Myers, McCaulley,

Quenk & Hammer, 1998). Type theory suggests that there are vigorous

relationships between these preferences. For each type, there will be a leading

dominant function or process, and a secondary auxiliary function or process

that interplay with a person’s attitudes (Myers & McCaulley, 1985). Therefore,

each type is postulated to define a specific set of behavioural tendencies

reflecting differences in a persons attitudes, interests, and decision-making

style (Boyle, 1995).

Personality Type theory, while popular, suffers considerable

methodological problems (Barbuto, 1997; Boyle, 1995). For example, according

to Gardner and Martinko (1996), the abbreviated version of the MBTI® is now

discontinued due to reliability and validity problems. Boyle (1995), also

26

suggests that the inclusion of experimental items into the latest version of the

MBTI®, which are not used for scoring purposes, serves only to increase

testing time, and provides no suitable information for standard use of the

MBTI®.

Another criticism of the MBTI® is the samples reported are typically high

school and university students. There is a paucity of research available for

adult populations, minorities or working-class populations (Barbuto, 1997;

Boyle, 1995). Wiggins (1989) also suggested that there appears to be little

support for the assumption of dichotomous types.

The final way one can approach personality is via a systems approach.

The systems approach divides personality into broad structures or areas. Each

area is partly distinct and, collectively, they cover all personality functions

(Mayer, 2001a, 2007). Mayer’s (2001a, 2007) Systems Framework of

Personality divides personality into four areas. The first is identified as Energy

Development, which deals with the motives and emotions within one oneself.

Mayer (2007) argues that people draw on mental energy (i.e., the potential

mental activity) to function psychologically. This, in part, is determined by a

person’s motives and emotions. Motives are thought to represent basic urges,

which force an individual to act (e.g., to eat or drink). Emotions, on the other

hand, help guide individuals motives by either enhancing or discouraging the

likelihood of an individual’s behaviour at the right moment.

The second area, Knowledge Guidance, deals with the many mental

maps or models we develop of the real world to help guide our behaviour. For

27

example, returning to the basic motive of eating, the actual notion of food and

where one may find some is recorded in an individual’s mental model (Mayer,

2007).

The third area is Action Implementation. Earlier, we noted how mental

energy develops and is attached to internal mental models, which guide our

behaviour. Generally, these models correspond to actual goals that are

represented in the outside world, and may satisfy one’s needs (e.g., the eating

of food). Once goals have been established, the personality system provides

plans for execution so as to attain these goals (Mayer, 2007).

The final area is Conscious Self-Regulation. This area guides an

individual to deal more effectively with the environment by allowing one the

capacity for interval review, Ober servation and intervention on established

mental models of the real world (Mayer, 2007).

In looking at the three general models that can characterise a person’s

personality, the dominant approach to studying leadership behaviour has been

to use the trait perspective to personality.

Despite criticisms (see Block, 1995), the trait approach to personality

does provide a useful framework for the broad description of individual

characteristics of personality, and the prediction of behaviour (Barrick and

Mount, 1991; Dawda, 1997). This dissertation is interested in the prediction of

effective leadership behaviour, and whether emotional intelligence can predict

behaviour beyond that of global characteristics of personality. Therefore, the

28

trait approach, or Five Factor Model, offers a suitable framework to the study of

leadership behaviours.

For example, personality traits such as conscientiousness (Barrick &

Mount, 1991), self-confidence (Bass, 1990a), internal drive (Howell and Avolio,

1993; Miller and Toulouse, 1986), personal integrity (Cox and Cooper, 1989),

power motivation (Bray and Howard, 1988; McClelland and Boystzis, 1982) and

technical knowledge of a job (Bass, 1990a) have been found to be influential

predictors of effective leadership.

Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) postulated that while research showed that

the possession of certain traits alone does not guarantee leadership success,

there is now sufficient evidence to imply that effective leaders are different

from other people in certain key respects. They offered a taxonomy of traits,

which is shown in Table 2. These key traits appear broad enough to

encompass the previous research by Stogdill (1974) on personality traits that

predicted workplace outcomes.

29

Table 2

Findings of Recent Research on Leader Traits or Skills Associated With Effective Leadership

30

Even with these promising leadership research findings involving

intelligence and, to a lesser extent, other personality traits, there still remain

many questions around why some leaders are more successful than others in

dealing with environmental demands and life in general. Does EI add anything?

Emergence of the Emotional Intelligence Concept

One area gaining extraordinary interest in both the media and academic

research and appearing to be important in the study of leadership is the field of

EI. The popular media touts EI as the key to identifying and developing future

leaders. Some prominent EI advocates suggest that EI is the crucial difference

between an average leader and an effective leader, with close to 90 percent of

an effective leader’s success being attributable to EI (Goleman, 1998; McKee,

2005). While no study to date has been able to demonstrate that claim, the

cumulative research on EI does show every indication that it can be predictive

of performance and is, in fact, a construct worthy of inclusion within the field of

leadership research (Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004).

This section will first examine the various EI models, with particular

emphasis given to the theories underlying the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional

Intelligence Test (MSCEIT™) and the Swinburne Emotional Intelligence Test

(SUEIT). Later, this section will conclude with an examination of the

relationship between EI and leadership effectiveness, which appears to offer

some support for the personality domains of effective leadership.

31

Historically, philosophers and scientists have considered concepts of

emotions and intelligence separately in Western culture for over 2000 years

(Salovey and Mayer, 1990). Of particular interest, the field of intelligence has

dominated the predictive leadership research for the best part of last century

(Jacobs and Jaques, 1987; Phillips and Hunt, 1992).

Gardner (1983) was one of the first to challenge the notion of

intelligence as a unitary ability. Drawing on evidence from neurophysiology and

psychology, he suggested that there were multiple intelligences. Within his

earlier theory of multiple intelligences, Gardner described seven forms of

intelligence, two of which have proven particularly influential to the

development of EI theory. The first intelligence of note is the Interpersonal

intelligence domain, which is the ability to notice and make distinctions among

other individuals’ moods, temperaments, motivations, and intentions. The

other pertinent intelligence is described as Intrapersonal intelligence, which is

the ability to access one’s own feelings, range of affect or emotions, and to be

able to draw upon them as a means of understanding and guiding one’s

behaviour (Gardner, 1983). For Gardner, the notion that one could access their

feelings or emotions did not constitute EI, but rather was part of a general self

and social-awareness ability which were inter-connected with one another

(Mayer, 2006).

Salovey and Mayer (1990) drew together much of the material available

on cognition (i.e., capacity to carry out abstract reasoning) and emotion

(defined as signals that convey regular, discernable meanings about

32

relationships) and developed a theory of EI (Mayer, 2001b; Mayer & Geher,

1996).

Between 1994 and 1997, EI was popularised by psychologist and

journalist Daniel Goleman (1995) in his book “Emotional Intelligence”. During

this time, Goleman (1995) made up a new definition that was substantially

different from that conceived by Salovey and Mayer (1990). It appeared to

equate EI with good social behaviour. Since 1997, there has been an explosion

of activity in a new and now fuzzily defined area. EI is now used popularly to

mean various things, including motivation, empathy, sociability, warmth, and

optimism (Mayer, 2001b).

Mayer and Salovey (1997) argue that there are two major EI models that

drive current research: (1) ability models and (2) mixed models. Ability models

conceptualise EI in a similar way to cognitive intelligence (i.e., Intelligence

Quotient - IQ). These models suggest that EI should develop over time, be

correlated with measures of IQ, and be measurable with a test based on

performance (Ciarrochi, Chan & Caputi 2000; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso 2004a).

When Salovey and Mayer (1990) proposed the construct of EI, they argued that

there is another layer of intellectual competence untapped by traditional

definitions of intelligence. Instead of replacing traditional definitions of

intelligence, EI simply enriches a multivariate matrix of intellectual competence

(Dai and Sternberg, 2004). For this reason, the ability-based models of EI can

be seen as an extension of information-processing theories of intelligence.

Information-processing, or cognitive theories, of intelligence all attempt to

33

understand human intelligence in terms of mental processes that contribute to

cognitive task performance (Sternberg, 1985; Mayer and Salovey, 1997).

In contrast, mixed models of EI incorporate both non-cognitive models

(e.g., BarOn 1997) and competency-based models (e.g., Goleman 1995).

These mixed models typically overlap with traditional models of personality, and

tend to utilise self-reports as their primary mode of assessment. They are

viewed as personality trait theories of intelligence, although, as will be explored

later, they appear to reflect the domain of personality more so than the domain

of intelligence.

A critical question for researchers is whether EI is distinguishable from

traditional measures of personality and cognitive ability. The ability-based

measure of EI has been repeatedly shown to have incremental value over

traditional measures of intelligence (Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi, 2000; Ciarrochi,

Dean & Anderson, 2002; Mayer in 2006; Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2000b;

Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2003) and should theoretically follow on

from previous information-processing theories on intelligence. In contrast,

mixed model measures of EI correlate, sometimes strongly, with measures of

personality (Ciarrochi, Chan & Caputi, 2000; Ciarrochi, Chan, Caputi, & Roberts,

2001; MacCann, Mathews, Zeidner & Roberts, 2004). Some research has

shown that these measures can show incremental value over personality in

predicting life satisfaction (Austin, Saklofske & Egan, 2005a,b; Ciarrochi, Chan

& Bajgar, 2001; Palmer, Donaldson & Stough, 2001), increased willingness to

seek help for personal-emotional problems (Ciarrochi and Deane 2001) and

depression (Schutte et al., 1998). Whereas others have shown that, they add

34

little incremental value in predicting workplace outcomes (Davies, Stankov, &

Roberts, 1998). Whether these associations with self-report EI are due to it

being a new concept not previously defined, or simply an extension of

personality traits is yet to be fully explored in the research.

As EI can be both viewed and measured quite distinctively, depending on

which theoretical model is used, one really needs to explain which EI model

they are using before conclusions can be drawn about its usefulness in

predicting leadership effectiveness. For the ability model of EI, the instrument

that has arguably generated the most interest and research so far has been

that by Mayer and his colleagues via the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional

Intelligence Test (MSCEIT™), which uses a criterion-report test format to

assess people’s EI.

For self-report EI tests, or mixed models, there has been significant

commercial momentum over the past decade with dozens, if not hundreds, of

self-report style EI tests becoming available on the market. One such self-

report EI test is the Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT).

This test, while not as widely published in scientific journals as the Goleman

Emotional Competency Inventory (ECI) or the BarOn EQ-i test, does warrant

investigation as it focuses on EI in the workplace rather than general EI. It also

has evidence supporting its reliability and validity, is normed for Australian

populations, and derived from the key factors found in the dominant mixed EI

models (e.g., BarOn EQ-i). Both ability model EI with the MSCEIT™ and mixed-

model of EI with the SUEIT will be examined further in the following sections.

35

Ability Model of Emotional Intelligence

Traditional views of intelligence refer to mental abilities such as reasoning,

engagement in abstract thought, or any of a dozen other related groups of

mental abilities (Mayer, Caruso & Salovey, 2000b). Emotions, on the other

hand, typically include the emotions themselves, moods, evaluations, and other

feelings. Definitions of EI should in some way connect the two terms if they

wish to hold any practical application, like the prediction of leadership

effectiveness (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). Mayer, Caruso, and Salovey (1999)

offer a definition that draws both emotion and intelligence together, that is:

“Emotional intelligence refers to an ability to recognise the meanings

of emotions and their relationships and to reason and problem-solve on the

basis of them. Emotional intelligence is involved in the capacity to perceive

emotions, assimilate emotion-related feelings, understand the information of

those emotions, and manage them” (p. 267).

This definition combines the notion that emotions make thinking more

intelligent, and that one will think intelligently about emotions. This definition

states that even as emotions and cognition represent different functions of the

mind, they do in fact interact and are expressed in an integrated form (Mayer,

Salovey & Caruso, 2004a,b). Mayer and Salovey (1990) use this definition to

articulate their EI theory, which further describes several discrete emotional

36

abilities. These emotional abilities are divided into four branches as shown in

Figure 1.

Figure 1. A four-branch model of the skills involved in EI.

The four ability areas are arranged from lower, more molecular skills, to

higher molar skills (Mayer, Caruso & Salovey, 2000a). The lowest level of these

branch areas concerns the ability to perceive and express one’s emotion, for

example in a facial expression or a piece of artwork. The next level up involves

assimilating basic emotional experiences into thinking. As a person matures,

emotions begin to shape and improve thinking by directing an individual’s

attention to important changes around them. For example, a child who worries

about their homework while watching television may not act on that emotion.

A teacher may also worry about a lesson that needs to be competed for the

next day. The teacher, with their better-developed thinking, will likely move

onto completing the task before their emotion overtakes them. The third level

Emotional Intelligence

Reflectively Regulating Emotions

Understanding of Emotion

Emotional Facilitation of Thinking

Perceiving and Expressing Emotion

37

involves the understanding and reasoning behind emotions. Each emotion does

in fact follow its own specific rules. For example, anger can manifest itself

when justice is denied, fear often changes to relief. Many emotional sets move

along a continuum of intensity. EI is about understanding this continuum and

how to best reason about emotion accordingly. The fourth and highest level

involves the management and regulation of emotion in oneself and others, for

example, knowing when to calm down after feeling angry, or being able to

alleviate the anxiety of another person (Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Mayer et al.,

2000a).

The model also makes predictions of the internal structure of

intelligence. That is, EI is viewed as another form of intelligence, as mental

problems that have either right or wrong answers. The measured skills of EI

correlate with other measures of mental ability, and the absolute ability level

will rise with age. These are some of the trademarks of existing intelligence

tests (Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Mayer, et al., 2000a).

Finally, the model also makes predictions on life outcomes in general.

Specifically, that an emotionally intelligent individual will be more likely to:

(a) Have grown up in bio-socially adaptive households (i.e., have had

emotionally sensitive parenting),

(b) Be non-defensive,

(c) Be able to reframe emotions effectively (i.e., be realistically

optimistic and appreciative)

(d) Choose good emotional role models,

38

(e) Be able to communicate and discuss feelings, and

(f) Develop expert knowledge in a particular emotional area (Mayer, et

al., 2000a, p. 400) such as leadership.

There are a few known ability-based EI tests that tap into aspects of

Mayer and Salovey’s (1990, 1997) theoretical model of EI, for example, the

Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale (LEAS) by Lane, Quinlan and Schwartz

(1990). Another is the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test

(MSCEIT™) developed by the same authors who brought us the ability model of

EI (Mayer, Salovey and Caruso, 2002). The MSCEIT™ evolved from its

predecessor, the Multi-factor Emotional Scale (MEIS; Mayer, et al., 1999).

Some researchers regard The MSCEIT™ as the most scientifically accepted

ability test for EI currently on the market (Zeidner et al., 2004). For this

reason, the MSCEIT™ will now be looked at in light of the ability model of EI

discussed above.

Measuring EI with the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence

Test

The MSCEIT’s™ predecessor, the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale

(MEIS), was regarded as reliable, distinctive and found to be related to

important life outcomes (Brackett and Geher, 2006). However, it suffered from

some methodological problems (see Zeidner et al., 2004) and was quickly

improved upon and commercialised.

39

The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test is an ability-based

scale (Mayer et al., 2000; Mayer et al., 2002). That is, it is intended to

measure how well people perform on tasks and solve emotional problems,

rather than simply use self-judgement. The MSCEIT™, while producing a single

EI performance score, is linked to a Four Branch Model of EI. An overview can

be found in Table 3.

Table 3

Overview of the Four-Branch Model of Emotional Intelligence

Branch name Brief description of skills involved

Perceiving Emotions (Branch 1) The ability to perceive emotions in oneself

and others, as well as in objects, art,

stories, music, and other stimuli.

Facilitating Thought (Branch 2) The ability to generate, use, and feel

emotion as necessary to communicate

feelings, or employ them in other cognitive

processes.

Understanding Emotions (Branch 3) The ability to understand emotional

information, how emotions combine and

progress through relationship transitions,

and to appreciate such emotional

meanings.

Managing Emotions (Branch 4) The ability to be open to feelings, and to

modulate them in oneself and others so as

to promote personal understanding and

growth.

Each branch score, in turn, is made up of two individual tasks. The

MSCEIT™ is capable of producing an overall scale, four branch scores and 8

40

task level scores. The MSCEIT™ also produces two overarching area scores,

Experiential Emotional Intelligence and Strategic Emotional Intelligence. The

scales and sub scales are presented in table 4. Overall, the MSCEIT™ is based

on the EI definition and theory postulated by Mayer and Salovey (1997).

Table 4

Structure of the MSCEIT™

The MSCEIT™ can be scored via one of two methods - the “general

consensus” method or the “expert consensus” approach. The general

consensus method uses a normative sample of 5000 to score an item. If 70%

of the normative sample selected “A” as a response, that score would yield a

score of .70 for that item. Thus, the identified correct answer is the one that is

considered correct by the majority of people in the research or standardised

sample. The expert scoring method follows the sample principles. However,

41

instead of using the normative sample, a sample of 21 emotion experts is used

to formulate the scores associated with each item. The correlation between the

general consensus based and expert based item response frequencies is .90

using the latest version of the MSCEIT™ (Mayer et al., 2002).

The consensus versus expert scoring system of the MSCEIT™ has

received much attention from critics. For example, Roberts, Zeidner and

Matthews (2001) examined the predecessor to the MSCEIT™, the MEIS and

showed that the general and expert scoring methods yield conflicting results.

In another study, the same authors looked more specifically at which scoring

method was superior in terms of reliability and validity (MacCann et al., 2004).

The authors concluded that there are perhaps more rigorous statistical

processes for scoring the MSCEIT™ that still involve consensus scoring. There

still remains little conclusion as to which scoring method is better, although the

publishers of the MSCEIT™, Multi-Health Systems (MHS) advocate the general

consensus method, largely due to its large sample base. Even with this

criticism, the MSCEIT™ is seen as an objective test as test items have a range

of answers that vary according to their ‘correctness’, or appropriateness, or

frequency of use in the population, which are determined, by either consensus

or expert scoring systems (Brackett, Lopes, Ivcevic, Mayer & Salovey, 2004).

The MSCEIT™ also shows good signs of reliability and validity. For

example, in a study by Mayer et al. (2003), the MSCEIT™ was found to show

reasonable reliability and support for the dimensional structure postulated by

Mayer and Salovey (1997) of EI. The reliabilities of the four branch scores for

both methods of scoring were between .76 and .91. Brackett and Mayer (2003)

42

reported the test-retest reliability of the full test over a three-week period to be

.86 (Brackett & Mayer, 2003). In another study conducted independently of the

original authors, Palmer, Gignac, Manocha and Stough (in press) also found

support for the internal reliability of the MSCEIT™ (co-efficient scores in the .71

to .90 range) but only partial support for the underlying factor structure, with

three factors instead of four being identified. In another independent study,

Livingstone and Day (2005) found statistical support via a confirmatory factor

analysis for the four-factor model of the MSCEIT™.

Mayer et al. (2004a) summarised research examining the correlations

between the MSCEIT™ scores and personality traits. They reported that all

weighted mean correlations were below r = .21. Brackett and Mayer (2003)

also found the MSCEIT™ was able to predict important life criteria such

psychological health and wellbeing, in particular personal growth and positive

relations (r = .36 and r = .27 respectively). Further studies by Brackett et al.

(2003) found that lower MSCEIT™ scores in males were associated with drug

use, alcohol use, deviant behaviour, and poor relations with friends (rs = -.28

to -.45). Similarly, the MEIS has been positively correlated with verbal

intelligence and self-reported empathy (Ciarrochi et al., 2000).

Mayer et al. (2000) proposed that EI should relate to IQ. Studies have

found that high scores on dimensions of the MSCEIT™ and the MEIS predict

high performance on a cognitive decision-making task (see Day & Carroll,

2003). They are also related to verbal SAT scores (r =.35, Brackett et al.,

2003) and the WAIS-III vocabulary subscale (r =.17, Lopes, Salovey, & Straus,

2003).

43

Research within organisational settings has also shown promising results.

For example, individuals who scored higher on the MSCEIT™ received higher

supervisor ratings for job performance, r = .22 (Janovics & Christiansen, 2002),

and obtained higher ratings for customer service, r = .46 (Rice, 1999).

Furthermore, it has been reported that high scores are linked to greater merit

increases, peer and supervisor ratings, rs = .36 to .51 (Lopes, Côté, Grewal,

Kadis, Gall & Salovey, 2003) and subordinate ratings of leaders, r = .39 (Kerr,

Garvin, Heaton & Boyle, 2006).

In summary, these results suggest that although the MSCEIT™ is in its

early stages, it is reliable and valid in measuring something other than

personality and well being, and relates to important outcomes (Brackett &

Geher, 2006).

Mixed Models of Emotional Intelligence

Mixed models describe EI as exhibiting similar characteristics as traditional

views of personality traits. That is, they are an individual’s characteristics or

preferred ways of behaving (e.g., extroversion – Mayer & Salovey, 1997).

Mixed models of EI are substantially different from the mental ability models.

Daniel Goleman’s Emotional Competency Inventory (ECI) and the Reuven

BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory (BarOn EQ-i) are two of the most

prominent measures available that fit this notion of mixed EI models. Both of

these tests of EI will be explored further to assist us in discussing the relatively

new self-report Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT).

44

Goleman (1998) defined EI as “the capacity for recognising our own

feelings and those of others, for motivating ourselves, and for managing

emotions well in ourselves and in our relationships” (p. 317). Goleman (2001)

redefined the mental ability model originally proposed by Salovey and Mayer

(1990) into four broad competencies, which could be further broken down into

another 20 subcategories (refer to table 5). He purposely moved away from

defining his model as a form of intelligence to a set of competencies. This

reflects his thinking that competencies are better predictors of success and can

be learnt. He defines an emotional competence as a learned capability that is

largely based on EI and results in outstanding performance at work (Goleman,

1998). Along with Goleman’s Emotional Competence Model, Table 5 also

highlights two other trait theories of EI that are explored later.

45

Table 5

Comparison of Mixed Models of Emotional Intelligence

Goleman’s Emotional Competency

Model

BarOn’s EI Model Palmer & Stough’s EI Model

Self-Awareness

Emotional self-awareness

Accurate self-assessment

Self-confidence

Intrapersonal Components

Emotional self-awareness

Assertiveness

Self-regard

Self-actualisation

Independence

Emotional Recognition and

Expression

Ability to identify one’s own

feelings

Ability to express those inner

feelings

Self-Management

Self-control

Trustworthiness

Conscientiousness

Adaptability

Achievement drive

Initiative

Adaptability Components

Problem solving

Reality testing

Flexibility

Emotions Direct Cognition

Emotional knowledge

Problem solving

46

Social Awareness

Empathy

Service orientation

Organisational awareness

Interpersonal Components

Empathy

Social responsibility

Interpersonal relationship

Understanding of Emotions External

Identify emotions

Understand emotions

Relationship Management

Developing others

Influence

Communication

Conflict management

Leadership

Change catalyst

Building bonds

Teamwork & collaboration

Stress Management Components

Stress tolerance

Impulse control

Emotional Management

Manage positive emotions

Manage negative emotions

General Mood Components

Happiness

Optimism

Emotional Control

Controlling of emotions

47

Boyatzis and Goleman (1999) developed the Emotional Competency

Inventory (ECI) based on Goleman’s theory. The ECI measures the four

underlying EI competencies and their sub-categories as previously described in

Table 4. A recent review undertaken by Brackett and Geher (2006) on the ECI

found poor support for their underlying structural model, and limited research

was available on the psychometric proprieties of the instrument around both

structural and incremental validity. Brackett and Geher (2006) point out that

there is some predictive workplace evidence around the ECI. For example,

scores obtained on the ECI were correlated positively with several indices of job

performance in fire fighters from Britain (Stagg & Gunter, 2002, cited in

Brackett & Geher, 2006).

Murensky (2000) also examined the relationship between the

competencies of ECI (Boyatzis and Goleman, 1999) with the attainment of

strategic organizational goals as measured via objective business outcomes,

such as an increase in shareholder value amongst 90 senior managers at an

international oil corporation. While she found a strong overlap in most

dimensions of the ECI and measures of personality (as measured by the

Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Personality Inventory (NEO-PI)) (e.g., r =

.47 for the correlation between Self-awareness and Extraversion), there was

some variance explained above the NEO-PI in predicting organisational

performance.

The other prominent mixed model of EI is offered by Reuven Bar-On

who described EI as “…an array of noncognitive capabilities, competencies, and

skills that influence one’s ability to succeed in coping with environmental

48

demands and pressures” (Bar-On 1997, p. 14). Simply put, this description

refers to any ability or skill that is not specifically cognitive (Mayer, 2006).

Bar-On's model is multifactorial and purportedly relates to the potential

for performance, rather than performance itself. It revolves around a group of

five factorial components (emotional skills) described in table 5. Recently, Bar-

On (2004, 2005) described the general mood factor as a facilitator of EI rather

than part of it.

There is considerably more research available on the merits of the Bar-

On EI model measured via the BarOn Emotional Intelligence Quotient (EQ-i,

Bar-On, 1997). In one study, the EQ-i was predictive of excessive alcohol

consumption after controlling for personality (Brackett & Mayer, 2003). In

another study examining the EQ-i and occupational performance amongst US

Air Force recruits, results showed that high scores on the EQ-i were associated

with those more likely to succeed in the recruitment process (r = .53; citied in

Bar-On, 2005). The BarOn has also demonstrated strong internal reliabilities (rs

> = .90) and shown sufficient test-retest reliability (r = .85 after one month;

BarOn, 1997). Research has also found that the EQ-i has a multiple r with the

Big Five personality factors (i.e., Extraversion, Neuroticism, Openness,

Agreeableness and Conscientiousness) of r = .75 (Mayer, 2006).

Both the Goleman and Bar-On models of EI can be viewed as taxonomic

models of EI that overlap with traditional personality measures and involve self-

report methods to measure the EI construct. They both also seem to measure

values (e.g., “service orientation” for Goleman and “social responsibility” for

Bar-On).

49

A final mixed model of EI that shares some of these virtues is that

offered by Ben Palmer and Con Stough via the Swinburne University Emotional

Intelligence Test (SUEIT - Palmer & Stough 2001). Palmer and Stough (2001;

Palmer 2003) offer a new taxonomic model of EI, which consists of an

overarching EI factor and five sub-scale factors as, displayed in Table 5. The

model appears to share similar constructs as those postulated by both Golemen

and BarOn (Palmer, 2003). For example, all models share the concept of self-

awareness and the ability to manage emotions in others. The SUEIT also

appears to be less value laden than either Goleman or BarOn EI models. In

addition, as shown in Table 5 above, the SUEIT is reflective of many of the

available self-report EI measures, and appears to minimise the overlap with

measuring pro-social values. Further details of this framework and the

psychometric proprieties underlying the model can be found in the next section

on measuring EI via the SUEIT.

There is one final point to be made about mixed models of EI. A major

challenge facing these conceptual models is that, in order to maintain

themselves as a legitimate form of intelligence, they need research to support

both their underlying factor structures, and association with traditional forms of

cognitive intelligence tests. As indicated earlier, most intelligence tests are

moderately correlated with one another. A low to moderate correlation

between an EI measure and a traditional cognitive intelligence test would

signify that the EI measure is distinct from the traditional cognitive test but still

related to the domain of intelligence. No correlation would suggest that the EI

50

measure is unrelated to the domain of intelligence (Mayer and Salovey, 1997).

This is a point we will explore further in this dissertation research.

Measuring EI with the Swinburne Emotional Intelligence Test

The Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT) was developed

after an extensive factor analytic study involving five prominent measures of EI

at the time (Palmer & Stough 2001; Palmer 2003). Four of these were

commonly used self-report measures of EI, including the Bar-On Emotional

Quotient Inventory (Bar-On, 1997), the Trait Meta-Mood Scale (Salovey, Mayer,

Goldman, Turvey & Palfai, 1995), the twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale-II

([TAS-20] Bagby, Taylor & Parker, 1994a,b), and the Emotional Intelligence

Scale ([EIS] Schutte et al., 1997). The fifth EI measure was the Multifactor

Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS), the predecessor of the MSCEIT™.

Palmer and Stough’s (2001) taxonomic model of EI was used to develop

the SUEIT. The SUEIT provides an overall EI score that indicates a participant’s

general workplace EI, and five sub-scale scores. The sub scale scores include:

(1) Emotional recognition and expression (in oneself), which is the

“ability to identify one’s own feelings and emotional states, and the

ability to express those inner feelings to others”

(2) Emotions direct cognition, which measure the “extent to which

emotions and emotional knowledge is incorporated in decision

making and/or problem solving”

51

(3) Understanding of emotions external, which is the “ability to identify

and understand the emotions of others and those manifest in

external stimuli”

(4) Emotional management, which is the “ability to manage positive

and negative emotions both within oneself and others” and

(5) Emotional control, which is “how effectively emotional states

experienced at work such as anger, stress, anxiety and frustration

are controlled” (Palmer & Stough, 2001, p. 5).

The SUEIT EI model bears considerable overlap with other mixed models

and measures of EI (Palmer & Stough 2001; Palmer 2003). For example, one

of the most popular theories within the EI mixed model paradigm is Goleman’s

(1998 & 2001) EI model. Goleman’s (2001) model appears to fit with the

SUEIT taxonomic model of EI above by appearing to measure the same

underline EI constructs. Further evidence to support the notion that the SUEIT

is a mixed model of EI lies with the questions used to measure EI, which

appear to be somewhat similar to questions used to examine the

comprehensive Five-Factor Model of personality (David, 2003).

Preliminary results reflect high internal consistencies for each of the five

sub-scales (emotional recognition and expression r = 0.77; emotions direct

cognition r = 0.89; understanding of emotions external r = 0.70; emotional

management r = 0.83; emotional control r = 0.77), and the total SUEIT EI

score (r = 0.91). It also shows sufficient test-retest reliability (r = .95 after one

52

month; Palmer & Stough, 2001). Research has also found that the SUEIT has a

moderate correlation with three of the Big Five personality factors (i.e., r = .44

for Extraversion, r = -.41 for Neuroticism and r = .27 for Openness – Palmer

and Stough, 2001).

There is also growing research to support the SUEIT’s discriminate

validity with self-reported transformational leadership style (see Palmer and

Stough, 2001; Palmer, Gardner and Stough, 2003; Palmer, Walls, Burgess and

Stough, 2000) and ability to predict leadership style (Downey, Papageorgiou &

Stough, 2005).

Both the MSCEIT™ and SUEIT offer an opportunity to measure and

examine leadership effectiveness from two different and extreme perspectives

of EI, that of the ability model versus the mixed model.

Leadership Effectiveness and Emotional Intelligence

People have theorised that EI contributes to people’s capacity to work

effectively in teams, manage stress, and/or lead others (Ashkanasy, Trevor-

Roberts, & Kennedy, 2000; George, 2000; Goleman, 1998; Mayer at al., 2004a;

Prati, Douglas, Ferris, Ammeter, & Buckley, 2003). For example, leaders who

are poor at perceiving emotions may unknowingly miss important emotional

signals from their co-workers. Similarly, leaders who are poor at managing

their own emotions may allow emotions to interfere with effective action. For

instance, when they feel anxious, they may avoid giving an important speech,

or when they feel angry, they may inappropriately lash out at a co-worker.

53

Finally, leaders who are poor at managing others emotions would be expected

to be poor at resolving interpersonal conflicts and creating positive “emotional

climates” that maximise productivity.

Caruso, Bienn and Kornacki (2006) further suggest that within an

organisational setting, EI appears to be most important in roles that require

frequent interpersonal contact with people, where such contacts form the basis

for effectiveness. Such a role would describe that of a leader who is often

interacting with numerous people to achieve business outcomes. The authors

also argue that while there has been a great deal of speculation regarding the

relationship between EI and leadership effectiveness, there has been little

empirical evidence supporting this to date.

The available EI-Leadership research supports the hypothesis that self-

reported EI is linked to self-reported transformational leadership style (Barling,

Slater & Kelloway, 2000, Palmer et al., 2001; Gardner & Stough, 2002). Barling

et al. (2000) conducted an exploratory study on the relationship between EI

and transformational leadership. Their results suggest that self-reported EI is

associated with three aspects of transformational leadership. Namely, idealised

influence, inspirational motivation, and individualised consideration. The

leaders who reportedly exhibited these behaviours were assumed more

effective in the workplace.

Palmer et al. (2001) administered a self-report EI measure to 43

managers in order to evaluate the link between EI and leadership style. They

found significant correlations with several components of the transformational

leadership model. Specifically, the inspirational, motivation and individualised

54

consideration components of transformational leadership style correlated with

self-reported ability to both monitor and manage emotions.

Gardner and Stough (2002), and later Palmer et al. (2003), also

examined the relationship between a self-report measure of EI (using the

SUEIT), personality (Big Five) and effective leadership (as measured by the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, MLQ – Bass and Avolio, 1990b). Their

results indicated that EI, specifically the ability to perceive and understand

emotions in others, accounted for the majority of the variance in

transformational leadership styles when compared to other personality

measures.

Dulewicz and Higgs (1998, 1999, 2000) examined the link between self-

reported EI and job competence, and unlike many previous studies, did not

focus on the transformational-transactional model. These researchers looked at

leadership effectiveness from the perspective of progression within the

hierarchy of an organisation amongst 58 managers from the UK and Ireland.

Using a self-report measure of EI, which they derived from a job competency

survey, they found that EI was able to explain a greater proportion of an

individual’s advancement than either cognitive intelligence (also derived from

elements of the job competency survey) or personality traits (using the Sixteen

Personality Factor and Organizational Personality Questionnaire).

In another study, Higgs & Aitken (2003) examined 40 senior managers

using the self-report EI questionnaire, which focused on measures of self-

awareness, emotional resilience, motivation, interpersonal sensitivity, influence,

intuitiveness and conscientiousness, and integrity. Looking at the relationship

55

between managers’ overall performance assessment ratings and their EI scores,

they found minimal relationships between core aspects of effective leadership

(e.g., strategic leadership and leading capability) and overall EI score.

In summary, the available research supports the hypothesis that self-

report measures of EI is linked to indices of leadership style and effectiveness.

However, research is needed to evaluate whether an ability-based test of EI is

related to objective (or non-self-report) measures of leadership effectiveness.

While research based on self-reported managerial style is important, it

does not establish whether an ability-based test of EI or self-report measure of

EI is related to objective measures of leadership effectiveness, such as manager

ratings or measures of actual business unit performance. In one study, Lopes

et al. (2003) examined the link between an ability measure of EI (MSCEIT™)

and several indicators of job performance, including salary, merit increases, and

company rank. They also assessed interpersonal facilitation, affect and

attitudes at work, and leadership potential, using both peer and supervisor

ratings in 44 analysts and clerical/administrative employees. They found that

EI was related to the percentage of pay increase, internal classification level,

and better peer and supervisor ratings. Importantly, these results held even

after controlling for the effects of cognitive ability and personality traits.

In another study, Kerr et al. (2006) examined the relationship between

an ability measure of EI (MSCEIT™) and subordinates’ leadership ratings in 38

supervisors within a large manufacturing organisation. They found that EI was

positively related to subordinates’ leadership ratings on two of the four branch

model factors (r = .43 for perceiving emotion and r = .52 for using emotion)

56

and the overall EI score (r = .39). Unlike the previous study, the authors failed

to control for either personality or traditional measures of cognitive intelligence.

In an unpublished doctoral thesis, Bryson (2004) also explored the

relationship between leadership skills as reported via a 360-degree measure

and EI among a group of managers who enrolled in two leadership

development programs at the Centre for Creative Leadership. Small but

significant correlations were found between elements of the leadership scale

and two branches of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso EI model: Facilitating Thought

and Managing Emotions.

It has already been demonstrated in the previous section that the ability-

based model of EI psychometrically resembles intelligence in several ways.

However, there is surprisingly little work published on linking EI to workplace

performance, with Lopes et al. (2003) and Kerr et al. (2006) being important

exceptions. Critics of EI, such as Landy (2005), have pointed out that the

available data upon which applied EI speculations rest is embarrassingly flimsy.

Others have gone as far as suggesting that EI is an invalid concept, suggesting

it is not a form of intelligence and is defined too broadly (Locke, 2005). These

criticisms seem more levelled at mixed models of EI and are not reflective of

the advances in ability-based EI measures such as the MSCEIT™.

Landy’s (2005) and Locke’s (2005) criticisms or views are in fact

reflective of a good number of scholars in industrial and organisational

psychology and organisational behaviour (e.g., Conte, 2005; Zeidner, Matthews

and Roberts, 2001). The primary arguments offered by critics of EI are that EI

is little more than a loose conglomeration of extended personality traits, EI does

57

not meet psychometric standards, and that EI has no clear measurement rubric

– it changes all the time (Daus & Ashkanasy, 2003). Ashkanasy and Daus

(2005; Daus & Ashakansy, 2005), in a reply to the critics of EI, suggested that

these arguments generally hold true for self-report measures or mixed models

of EI, but not for ability models of EI, and that the four branch model offered

by Mayer and Salovey (1997) is the only scientifically defensible model of EI.

Zeidner et al. (2001) suggest that what is needed is for EI research studies to

demonstrate not just criterion and predictive validity, but also discriminate or

incremental validity with respect to existing tests of intelligence and personality.

In conclusion, the purpose of this literature review was to explore the

trait theories of leadership and leading EI theories, and to note how both the

ability and mixed models of EI approaches the prediction of effective

leadership, potentially adding to the growing literature on leadership traits or

abilities, in particular those associated with both intelligence and personality.

This research sought to answer the question of whether EI plays an important

role in leadership effectiveness by undertaking a series of workplace studies

described next in Chapter 3 and 4.

Chapter 3 deals with the first study. This was a small exploratory study

designed to look at the relationship between an ability measure of emotional

intelligence (MSCEIT™) and leadership effectiveness amongst senior executives

who undertook a developmental centre activity, and self-reported their

performance ratings for the 2002 - 2003 financial year. No self-report EI

measure was used in study one.

58

Chapter 4 deals with the second study. This study sought to extend the

first by examining the link between an ability measure of EI and two aspects of

leadership effectiveness, namely, attainment of business outcomes and the

display of effective interpersonal behaviours. This study formed part of the

2003 – 2004 annual performance appraisal process in a much larger sample. A

measure of personality and reasoning ability were also administered in order to

examine the incremental value of ability-EI measures over measures that are

commonly used in the organizational setting. Finally, a self-report measure of

EI (i.e., the SUEIT) was also administered in order to examine its relationship to

leadership outcomes.

59

CHAPTER 3

Study I

Emotional Intelligence and its Relationship to Workplace Performance

Outcomes of Leadership Effectiveness

Statement of the Problem and Research Hypothesis

The available research (see chapter 2) supports the hypothesis that EI is linked

to indices of leadership style and effectiveness. This research has focused on

self-reports of EI and of leadership style. Research is needed to evaluate

whether an ability-based test of EI is related to relatively objective (or non-self-

report) measures of leadership effectiveness.

Leader effectiveness has always been difficult to measure as objective

criteria are often absent (Murensky, 2000). Some have argued that emphasis

must be placed on shareholders’ return on investment (Bass, 1990a), while

others have advocated for a more balanced approach, which also incorporates

non-financial measures (Kaplan & Norton, 1996).

Within the Australian Public Service, two measures of leader

effectiveness are often used: the Performance Management System, and 360

measures of leadership behaviours espoused within the workplace. They are

measures that are intended to assist one’s understanding if a leader has

managed to attain their organisational goals in such a manner that the

organisation is also able to grow. The purpose of the performance

management system is to evaluate an employee’s performance in achieving

60

agreed business outputs (e.g., increased product turnover) in the previous

financial year (known as the ‘what’, i.e., what has been achieved? For the

dissertation we refer to this as Business Outcomes Achieved) and to

evaluate how the employees demonstrate the expected leadership behaviours

in achieving those outputs (known as the ‘how’, i.e., how has it been achieved?

Do executives model the core values of the organisation? For the dissertation, I

refer to this as Effective Interpersonal Behaviours). The “what” and “how”

evaluations highlight two separate but related aspects of an individual’s

performance (Management Advisory Committee, 2001).

The performance management system is seen as a good indicator of an

individual’s leadership effectiveness (Management Advisory Committee 2001).

That is, does an individual meet business outcome in such a manner that they

not only achieve results but also build effective working relationships? This

leads us to our first hypothesis, which is the core focus of this study.

H1 an ability-based model of EI is positively associated with Effective

Leadership as measured via a Performance Management System

Ability-based Measure of EI – Relationship with Personality and

Intelligence

An ability-based measure of EI was used in this study, the Mayer-Salovey-

Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test, Version 2.0 (MSCEIT™ V2.0; Mayer et al.,

2002). The MSCEIT™ is intended to measure the four dimensions of EI as

61

postulated by Mayer and Salovey (1997), (a) perceiving emotion accurately, (b)

using emotion to facilitate thought, (c) understanding emotion, and (d)

managing emotion. The MSCEIT™ is based on the premise that EI involves

problem solving with and about emotions (Mayer et al., 2003). This concept is

quite different to the many self-report measures of EI in that it does not

correlate highly with personality, and tends instead to correlate modestly with

IQ (Ciarrochi et al., 2000; Dawda & Hart, 2000; MacCann, Mathews, Zeidner

and Roberts, 2003).

As revealed in the literature review, the MSCEIT™ has been found to

show reasonable reliability and support for the dimensional structure postulated

by Mayer and Salovey (1990) of EI. These results suggest that the MSCEIT™ is

reliable and valid in measuring something other then personality and well being,

and relates to important outcomes. This draws us to a second and third

hypothesis.

H2 an ability-based measure of EI is distinct from the Big Five personality

factors.

H3 an ability-based measure of EI is related to IQ but distinguishable

from it.

62

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 41 (N for the entire study) executives from a large

Australian Public Service organisation with 24 (57.14%) of respondents being

male, and 18 (42.86%) female. Participants’ aged ranged from 27 – 57, and

the average age was 42.24 (S.D. = 8.31). 75% of participants had been with

the organisation for 10 years or more (M = 15.56, S.D. = 8.20).

Procedure

Volunteers were sought from within an Australian Public Service organisation to

participate in a Career Development Centre (CDC). As part of the CDC, the

administration of a battery of psychological tests (i.e., 16PF, MSCEIT™ and

WASI) was given to all participants. All participants were provided with

information regarding the instruments, consent forms, a copy of the 16PF, and

either a paper and pencil version of the MSCEIT™ or computer access codes for

completing the MSCEIT™ on-line. Participants were also scheduled in to

complete the WASI. Participants self reported their performance management

results (i.e., their scores on achieving business outcomes and dealing effectively

with people). In exchange for their participation, individuals were provided

with a confidential feedback report on their results for each of the instruments.

Materials

Measurement of Emotional Intelligence. The MSCEIT™ V2.0 (Mayer et

al., 2002) was used to assess EI. The MSCEIT™ is an ability measure of EI as

it asks participants to complete a set of tasks associated with either perceiving

63

emotion, using emotion, understanding emotional information or managing

emotions. It contains 141 items, which are broken down into eight tasks, which

are further divided into four branches of abilities including (a) perceiving

emotion, (b) using emotion to facilitate thought, (c) understanding emotion,

and (d) managing emotions. Mayer et al. (2002) reported reliabilities of α =

0.91 for the full scale, α = 0.81 for emotional management, α = 0.77 for

emotional understanding, α =0.76 for emotional facilitation, and α = 0.90 for

emotional perception.

Measurement of Personality. Participants completed the well validated

16 Personality Factor questionnaire (Conn & Rieke, 1998). The 16PF was

chosen, as it is a widely used and recognised personality test within the

Australian Public Service sector with the availability of Australian norms. The

total scale contains 185 items and each subscale contains 10 to 15 items.

Measurement of Cognitive Ability. The Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of

Intelligence (WASI – Psychological Corporation, 1999) was used to measure

cognitive ability. The WASI consists of four subtests: Vocabulary, Block Design,

Similarities, and Matrix Reasoning. These subtests measure an individual’s

expressive vocabulary, verbal knowledge, visual-motor coordination, abstract

conceptualisation, verbal reasoning ability and non-verbal fluid reasoning. The

WASI is seen as a good measure of IQ, yielding the traditional measures of

verbal, performance and full scale IQ in a relatively convenient fashion.

64

Leadership Effectiveness. For a richer description of the performance

management system please refer to study two in Chapter 4. In summary, the

Performance Management System measures both the Business Outcomes

Achieved and Effective Interpersonal Behaviours, which are rated on a five-

point scale (1 to 5) by the participants’ direct manager. Individuals are not

rated for their innate abilities, knowledge or skills, but rather on how well they

achieved business outputs over the financial year. The meaning of each rating

is: (5) Exceptional - Performance well beyond expectations, breaking new

ground, producing outcomes of considerable value to the organisation, often

quite unanticipated; (4) Superior - Achievement has been consistently high on

the range of indicators, behaviours, capabilities and any leadership role

throughout the financial year; (3) Fully Effective - Good and meritorious

achievement. Has achieved standard detailed in performance agreement for

both business outputs and behaviours; (2) Borderline Performance - has slipped

below standards detailed in performance agreement for either business outputs

and/or behaviours; and (1) Unsatisfactory - Continued failure to achieve

expected standard.

The performance management system is seen as a good indicator of an

individual’s leadership effectiveness (Management Advisory Committee, 2001).

It assesses not only whether a person achieved results (the Business Outcomes

Achieved of performance), but also whether they built effective working

relationships while achieving results (the Effective Interpersonal Behaviours of

performance).

65

With regards to the Multi-rater (360°) assessment, all participants were

asked to complete an on-line multi-rater (360°) instrument (Perspectives on

Executive Leadership Capabilities - PELC). It comprises 40 behavioural

statements that relate to the Australian Public Service Commission (APSC)

Leadership Capability Framework (refer to chapter 4 for more details on the

APSC leadership capability framework).

The PELC involves an individual self-rating his or her own leadership

effectiveness, while direct staff and the individual’s direct manager also rates

the person on the same criteria. That is, it involves a manager and at least

three subordinates (M = 3.6 subordinates per participating executive). No data

on age or gender were collected to maintain the anonymity of direct managers

and their participants’ subordinates. While we would expect a positive

correlation between individual’s performance ratings and their results obtained

on the multi-rater questionnaire, the multi-rater offers us further insight into

leadership behaviours espoused by an individual as it includes views from staff

and manager. The PELC’s scale reliability coefficient was 0.93.

Results

A preliminary analysis on the relationship between EI, Personality and Cognitive

Intelligence and leadership effectiveness was conducted. Correlational analysis

was also conducted between EI and personality and IQ. Following these

analyses, the study focused on the predictive validity of EI.

66

Emotional Intelligence, Personality, Cognitive Intelligence and leadership

effectiveness

Pearson correlation coefficients were used to examine the relationship between

EI and leadership effectiveness as measured through the performance

management ratings. Table 6 showed that a relationship between the total EI

score (M = 100.1) and performance rating on the “Effective Interpersonal

Behaviours” (or EIB for short) scale (M = 3.61) existed (r (40) = 0.38, p < .05).

These results support the notion that EI is related to a leader’s effectiveness in

being able to achieve organisational goals through the obtainment of higher

performance ratings thus supporting the first hypothesis.

67

Table 6 Correlations Coefficients between EI, Personality and Cognitive Ability with Performance Management Ratings Achieves Business

Outcomes Rating Effective Interpersonal Behaviour Rating

Ability-Based Emotional Intelligence Total EI Score .02 .38* Perceiving Emotion .24 .42** Facilitating Thought -.03 .23 Understanding Emotion .23 .37* Managing Emotions .01 .16 Personality Warmth -.07 .07 Reasoning .15 .31 Emotional Stability .37 .28 Dominance .45*** .12 Liveliness .15 .02 Consciousness .19 .05 Social Boldness .07 -.04 Sensitivity -.00 .16 Vigilance -.17 -.24 Abstractedness -.15 -.06 Privateness -.40 -.36 Apprehension -.00 -.08 Openness to Change .09 -.07 Self Reliance -.08 -.09 Perfectionism .25 .22 Tension -.16 -.21 Extraversion .18 .15 Anxiety -.25 -.28 Tough Mindedness .00 -.04 Independence .29 .04 Self Control .19 .14 Cognitive Ability Verbal IQ .00 .18 Performance IQ .06 .17 Full Scale IQ .04 .20 * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .003. The .003 is the Bonferroni adjusted significance level for

the 16 personality items. Values at the .05 and .01 level were not treated as significant for the

personality variable.

68

Table 6 also shows that in regards to Personality, once we controlled for

type I error, only Dominance was positively related to an executive ability to

achieve business outcomes. Cognitive ability did not seem to impact the

performance management outcomes.

Pearson correlation coefficients were used to examine the relationship

between EI, personality, cognitive ability and multi-rater leadership feedback

ratings. Table 7 showed significant correlations amongst various branches of

the EI construct and the multi-rater leadership instrument. These results

indicate that a leader’s ability to perceive emotion and understand emotion

impacts on three or more core leadership behaviours as measured in the multi-

rater instrument. Personality in particular anxiety and extroversion correlated

with the multi-rater leadership instrument even after adjusting for type I error.

Only the last item of the multi-rater leadership instrument correlated with

cognitive intelligence.

69

Table 7

Correlations Coefficients between the MSCEIT™ Total and Branch Scores with

Multi-rater Leadership Feedback Ratings

SST CPWR EPDI CI AR

Emotional Intelligence Total EI Score .20 .34* .37* .16 .22 Perceiving Emotion .17 .33 .39* .11 .31 Facilitating Thought .01 .15 .19 -.06 .08 Understanding Emotion .35* .37* .27 .38* .16 Managing Emotions .31 .32 .21 .29 .04 Personality Warmth .28 .24 .11 .24 .01 Reasoning -.08 .07 .09 .04 .21 Emotional Stability .35 .36 .40 .31 .25 Dominance .41 .32 .19 .28 .25 Liveliness .36 .25 .19 .24 -.05 Consciousness .07 .17 .18 .13 .21 Social Boldness .42 .47 .25 .31 .10 Sensitivity -.15 -.16 -.23 -.07 -.27 Vigilance -.43 -.53*** -.43 -.32 -.46 Abstractedness -.03 -.18 -.32 -.05 -.32 Privateness -.50*** -.48*** -.31 -.30 -.27 Apprehension -.40 -.31 -.35 -.29 -.17 Openness to Change .25 .12 .14 .22 .02 Self Reliance -.29 -.34 -.28 -.08 -.05 Perfectionism -.04 .16 .29 -.00 .19 Tension -.54*** -.38 -.26 -.32 -.25 Extraversion .48*** .46** .29 .29 .09 Anxiety -.63*** -.56*** -.53*** -.45*** -.39 Tough Mindedness -.10 .04 .14 -.10 .23 Independence .42 .32 .19 .30 .15 Self Control -.06 .14 .27 .01 .30 Cognitive Ability Verbal IQ .12 .03 .21 .07 .28 Performance IQ .09 .17 .28 .07 .39* Full Scale IQ .13 .12 .29 .09 .39*

SST = Shapes Strategic Thinking; CPWR = Cultivates Productive Working Relationships;

EPDI = Exemplifies Personal Drive and Integrity; CI = Communicates with Influence; AR =

Achieve Results. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .003. The .003 is the Bonferroni adjusted

70

significance level for the 16 personality items. Values at the .05 and .01 level were not treated

as significant for the personality variable.

Emotional Intelligence and Personality

No significant correlations were found between total EI score and any of the 16

personality factors, p > 0.05 (refer to table 8). At the four branch level small

correlations were found between warmth (r = 0.37), vigilance (r =-0.33) and

privateness (r = -0.38) and understanding emotion at p < 0.05. Similarly,

warmth (r = 0.32, p < 0.05), social boldness (r = 0.31, p < 0.05) and

privateness (r = -0.44, p < 0.01) correlated with managing emotion. Only

vigilance (r = -0.33, p < 0.05) correlated modestly with perceiving emotion.

These results support previous research, which showed that MSCEIT™ scores

are distinguishable from personality scores (Brackett & Mayer, 2003; Brackett et

al., 2003) and generally support the second hypothesis.

71

Table 8

Correlations Between 16PF Primary & Global Factors and MSCEIT™

Personality

Factors

Emotional

Intelligence

Perceiving

Emotions

Using

Emotions

Understanding

Emotions

Managing

Emotions

Warmth .17 -.04 .22 .37* .31*

Reasoning -.01 .08 -.07 .26 -.11

Emotional Stability .08 .10 .07 -.11 -.01

Dominance -.04 -.12 .00 .04 .12

Liveliness .05 -.15 .01 .25 .31

Consciousness -.14 -.10 -.13 -.21 -.15

Social Boldness -.03 -.22 .08 .13 .31*

Sensitivity .04 -.06 -.00 .16 .04

Vigilance -.22 -.33* .02 -.33* -.17

Abstractedness -.08 -.14 -.06 .18 .13

Privateness -.28 -.08 -.23 -.38* -.44**

Apprehension -.22 -.15 -.19 .04 -.23

Openness to Change .09 -.06 .08 .19 .18

Self Reliance -.14 .00 -.12 -.26 -.27

Perfectionism .17 .20 .15 -.05 .01

Tension -.26 -.05 -.28 -.26 -.24

Extraversion .19 -.03 .17 .38* .42**

Anxiety -.28 -.21 .21 -.11 -.23

Tough Mindedness -.07 .13 -.06 -.29 -.21

Independence -.04 -.17 .06 .06 .18

Self Control .04 .16 .03 -.22 -.17

* p < .05; ** p < .01

72

Emotional Intelligence and Cognitive Intelligence

The mean verbal IQ for this group was 117.2 (S.D. = 12.31), performance IQ

114.9 (S.D. = 10.67) and full scale IQ 118.3 (S.D. = 10.43).

Pearson correlation coefficients were used to examine any relationships

that may exist between EI and cognitive intelligences. Table 9 below shows

that the relationship between the total EI score (M = 100.1) and verbal IQ (M =

117.17), performance IQ (M = 114.85), full scale IQ (M = 118.26) was

significant, r (40) = .336, p < .05, r (40) = .402, p < .05, and r (40) = .430, p

< .01 respectively. These findings suggest that the MSCEIT™ in fact does

correlate with cognitive intelligence, indicating that the construct constitutes a

cognitive ability (see Mayer et al., 2000), thus supporting our third hypothesis.

Table 9

Correlations Coefficients between EI and Cognitive Intelligence

Verbal IQ Performance IQ Full Scale IQ

Total EI Score .336* .402* .430**

Perceiving Emotion .300 .345* .365*

Facilitating Thought 382* .416** .481**

Understanding

Emotion

.201 .280 .299

Managing Emotions .052 .129 .113

* p < .05; ** p < .01

73

Predictive Validity of the EI Construct

To explore the potential predictive validity of the EI construct forward stepwise

regression analyses were conducted using the performance management

achieves business outcomes and effective interpersonal behaviour measures as

the dependent variables (refer to table 10). The five global personality factors,

full-scale IQ and total EI score were entered in as the predictors. Variables

needed to achieve a significant probability of .05 for them to be considered in

the forward step and entered into the regression model. This process allows

for the identification of the regressors that most improve the fit in the model.

The personality factor independence emerged as the strongest predictor

of the “business outcomes achieved” measure of leadership effectiveness (β =

.12, p < 0.01), which accounted for 8% of the variance in the performance

measure. This was followed by the personality factor self control (β = .12, p <

0.05). Overall the final model was statistical significant accounting for

approximately 18% of the variance in the business outcomes achived

perspective of the performance management system, F (2, 37) = 4.00, p <

0.05.

Table 10

Stepwise Regression Fit – Business Outcomes Achieved Ratings

Step Predictor β ∆R2

1 Independence .12 .08

2 Self Control .12 .09

Note. Stepwise regression, total sample (N = 40); p to enter < .05; p to remove > .10;

74

The second stepwise regression analyses (found in Table 11) focused on

the performance management effective interpersonal behaviour measures as

the dependent variables. Emotional intelligence emerged as the strongest

predictor of the “effective interpersonal behaviour” measure of leadership

effectiveness (β = .02, p < 0.05), which accounted for 14% variance in the

performance measure. The overall model was statistical significant accounting

for approximately 18% of the variance in the effective interpersonal behaviour

perspective of the performance management system, F (2,36) = 3.93, p <

0.05.

Table 11

Stepwise Regression Fit – Effective Interpersonal Behaviour Ratings

Step Predictor β ∆R2

1 Emotional Intelligence .02 .14

2 Anxiety -.06 .04

Note. Stepwise regression, total sample (N = 40); p to enter < .05; p to remove > .10;

Discussion

The findings suggest that executives higher on EI are more likely to achieve

business outcomes and be considered as effective leaders by their subordinates

and direct manager. Regression analysis revealed that EI was able to predict

effective leadership. These results may have important implications on how we

performance manage, select and develop executives. However, caution must

be given in making too wide a generalisation of these findings, as the sample

size is small.

75

In terms of performance management, it is important for an executive to

be able to not only deliver outputs (the Achieve Business Outcomes of

performance), but also to deal effectively with colleagues and staff (the

Effective Interpersonal Behaviours of performance – Management Advisory

Committee, 2001). It may be common for executives to have the ability to

achieve business outcomes but not effective interpersonal skills. For example,

a technical specialist may perform complex tasks tenaciously and manage to

produce business outputs, but may be ineffective at managing his or her

subordinates, leading to staff turnover and under performing. The results of

this study show that EI may be useful in identifying who is and is not likely to

deal effectively with colleagues and staff.

A central theme of the ability-based MSCEIT™ is that it has incremental

value over both personality and cognitive intelligence (Mayer et al., 2002)

although this was not tested for in study one. The overall EI score did not

correlate with any of the sixteen personality factors. Some of the subscales of

the MSCEIT™ correlated modestly with warmth, vigilance, privateness, and

social boldness. These results support previous research, which showed that

MSCEIT™ scores are distinguishable from personality (Brackett & Mayer, 2003;

Brackett et al., 2003)

Concerning cognitive intelligence, correlations were found between one’s

total EI score and verbal IQ, performance IQ and full scale IQ, supporting our

final hypothesis. Worth noting is that the executives in this study had

significantly higher IQ than average adult population. This pattern of findings

suggests that an executive may need a high IQ to get to the management or

76

executive levels, but once there, IQ does not discriminate between better or

worse performing managers. It may useful to evaluate whether the MSCEIT™

can be used to help select the best performing managers.

The correlations between EI and performance measures of leadership

effectiveness were modest (rs < 0.42). However, this level of correlation is the

same or higher in magnitude as many other correlations observed in the

personal selection context (Cook, 1995). For example, assessment centres

show correlations with performance that often vary between .33 to. 43.

Indeed, many of the most important relationships observed in psychology occur

at the r = .35 and below range (Mayer et al., 2001), and correlations of this

magnitude can lead to substantial increases in selection success rate (e.g., in

picking high quality managers (Rosenthal and Rubin, 1982).

The research had some limitations that will need to be addressed in

future research. It will be interesting to evaluate the link between EI and

leadership in larger samples, and across different industries. It will also be

important for research to evaluate the ability of EI to predict future

performance. I continue to hypothesise that EI leads to better executive

performance. However, it is possible that good executive performance leads to

higher EI. One way to resolve this problem is to conduct a longitudinal study

that involves measuring EI before newly hired executives start the job. This

would allow one to establish if EI skills were likely to be antecedents to

managerial success.

Study one was very much an exploratory study on the relationship

between an ability measure of EI and leadership effectiveness amongst senior

77

executives. The conclusion drawn from study one is that EI shows much

promise in the organisational domain and is worthy of further investigation. In

study two (see next chapter) I sought to extend and replicate study one by

further examining the link between an ability measure of EI and two aspects of

leadership effectiveness. I also administered a measure of personality and

reasoning ability in order to examine the incremental value of ability-EI

measures over measures that are commonly used in the organisational setting.

Finally, I administered a self-report measure of EI, in order to examine its

relationship to leadership outcomes, something that does not appear to have

been published previously.

78

CHAPTER 4

Study II

A Critical Evaluation of the Role of Emotional Intelligence in

Leadership Effectiveness

Statement of the Problem and Research Hypothesis

In the present study I sought to extend past research by examining the link

between an ability measure of EI and two aspects of leadership effectiveness,

namely, attainment of business outcomes and the display of effective

interpersonal behaviours. Past research has predominately focused on self-

report measures of EI using smaller samples to examine leadership style. I also

administered a measure of personality and reasoning ability in order to examine

the incremental value of ability-EI measures over measures that are commonly

used in the organisational setting, in order to deal directly with some of the

major criticisms being levelled at the EI paradigm. For example, in a special

issue of the Journal of Organizational Behaviour on EI, those authors critiquing

the EI concept concluded that any future EI research should always include

both measures of personality and measures of EI so that personality and EI

may be examined for overlap, redundancy, etc in the prediction of outcomes

(Conte, 2005; Landy, 2005). Finally, I administered a self-report measure of

EI, in order to examine its relationship to the attainment of business outcomes,

personality and reasoning ability.

79

This study also extends that of study one by further exploring the

linkages between personality at a more detailed level (i.e., focus will be on the

16 primary factors) and looking at the relationship between the two EI

measures. As outlined in chapter two, there is growing scepticism that EI

simply measures already well-established personality traits. Most published

studies appear to focus on the relationships between the Big Five personality

traits and EI and very little else is written on other personality taxonomies.

There is still a need for more systematic investigation on how the major

elements of EI might be related to existing dimensional models of personality

like the 16PF. Descriptive statistics and internal reliabilities for the EI measures

and personality measure are also explained in more detailed here than in study

one.

The primary measures of leadership effectiveness were based on a

structured performance management assessment. The structured performance

management system assesses employees’ progress towards organisational

goals (Corporate Leadership Council, 2002), and is seen as a good indicator of

an individual’s leadership effectiveness (Hogan et al., 1994; Management

Advisory Committee 2001). It establishes whether an individual meets business

outcomes in such a manner that they not only achieve results but also build

effective working relationships. Importantly, the performance management

system is tied to concrete outcomes for the individual: Leaders who score well

on the system receive larger bonus pay increases (up to 15% of their normal

pay).

80

George (2000) suggests that leadership involves the development of a

collective sense of goals, instilling in others both knowledge and appreciation of

certain work activities, and generating a sense of excitement, confidence, and

trust. These leadership elements are all present in a structured performance

management system. I would further argue that these elements all require a

leader to use their emotions to enhance how they communicate to subordinates

and assist in problem solving, which in turn would assist them to effectively

carry out the role of a leader.

An ability-based measure of emotional intelligence was used in this

study, the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test, Version 2.0

(MSCEIT™ V2.0; Mayer et al., 2002). As discussed earlier the MSCEIT™ is

intended to measure the four dimensions of emotional intelligence as

postulated by Mayer and Salovey (1997), (a) perceiving emotion accurately, (b)

using emotion to facilitate thought, (c) understanding emotion, and (d)

managing emotion. The MSCEIT™ is based on the premise that emotional

intelligence involves problem solving with and about emotions (Mayer et al.,

2003).

I hypothesize that each branch of EI is important to leadership

effectiveness. Concerning the first dimension, a leader who is skilled in

perceiving emotion knows what people feel, reads people accurately, is good at

recognising their own feelings and can express their feelings appropriately

(Caruso & Salovey, 2004). It is argued that these skills are particularly

important as it allows a leader to accurately capture important social data

around them, in particular the ability to “read between the lines” when dealing

81

with people which in turn can impact the organisations bottom line. For

example, a leader who can accurately identify that their staff are confused or

not aligned to the new business strategy can alter their approach to ensure

business outcomes are met (Caruso and Wolfe, 2004).

The second of the Mayer and Salovey (1997) four-branch ability-based

model, facilitating thought, is concerned with the ability to integrate basic

emotional experiences into one’s thought processes and to access, generate

and use emotions to facilitate problem solving, reasoning, decision-making, and

creativity (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). From a leadership perspective, emotions

direct a person’s attention to important changes, enables one to consider

multiple perspectives and different forms of reasoning are facilitated by

different kinds of moods. For example, if we turn to the area of sports, the

coach is often required to infuse the team with energy and positive thinking,

especially if they are considered the underdogs. In this positive mood, the

team is able to generate new ideas and enthusiasm to assist them to win the

game (Caruso & Wolfe, 2004). This analogy can be carried over to the

corporate world. Teams with positive moods are more likely to generate more

creative ideas, and teams with negative moods are less likely to make errors

when dealing with detailed work like accounts (Forgas, 2001).

The third EI branch is understanding emotions, or the ability to think

accurately about emotions. Understanding emotions is the ability to think

accurately about emotions. It involves being able to connect situations with

certain emotions. It also involves knowing that it is possible to feel several

possibly conflicting feelings in certain situations. Understanding what leads to

82

various emotions is a critical component of emotional intelligence. For instance,

annoyance and irritation can lead to rage if the cause of the irritation continues

and intensifies. Knowledge of how emotions combine and change over time is

important in our dealings with other people and in enhancing our self

understanding (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). In an organisational setting, effective

leadership would mean understanding subordinates, peers and clients' feelings

and emotions. Leaders who can understand the impact of an event on (for

example) the morale of their team, the political implications on a peer, or the

needs of a client, would be better equipped to predict the resulting emotions

and adjust their behaviours accordingly to maximise the chances of success.

The last branch of the Mayer and Salovey (1997) four-branch ability-

based model is managing emotion. Managing emotions means that a person

feels their feelings, but then uses these feelings in a judicious way, rather than

acting on them without thinking. For example, anger (like many emotions) is a

misunderstood emotion. Anger is not necessarily a “bad” thing to feel. In fact,

anger can help to overcome adversity, bias and injustice. Anger can arise when

someone feels frustrated, cheated, or taken advantage of within the workplace.

Yet anger, if left to itself, can be blinding and cause people to act in negative,

or antisocial ways. Managing emotions relates to a person's ability to feel the

emotion, no matter what the emotion may be, but to then combine thinking

with this emotion in order to make the best possible decisions and take the

most effective actions (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). This leads me to the first

hypothesis:-

83

H1 ability based emotional intelligence dimensions will be related to a

leader’s effectiveness in being able to achieve organisational goals as

reflected by higher ratings in achieving business outcomes and dealing

effectively with people.

This hypothesis extends the first study where the focus was only at the

broad level measure of emotional intelligence. This was due to the relatively

small sample of study one.

The MSCEIT™ was chosen as the primary EI measure as it has been

developed as an ability measure of EI and does not correlate highly with

personality (Ciarrochi et al., 2000; Dawda & Hart, 2000; MacCann et al., 2003).

As discussed in chapter two the MSCEIT™ was found to show reasonable

reliability and support for the dimensional structure postulated by Mayer and

Salovey (1990) of emotional intelligence (Mayer et al., 2003). It is

distinguishable from well-studied measures of personality and well-being and

has been reported to predict important life criteria such as drug use, alcohol

use and academic achievement (Brackett and Mayer, 2003), performance on a

cognitive decision-making task (see Day & Carroll, 2003), low levels of social

deviance (Brackett et al., 2003) and higher levels of intelligence (MacCann et

al., 2003). These results suggest that the MSCEIT™ is reliable and valid in

measuring something other then personality and well being, and relates to

important outcomes. Following from study one I re-examine the relationship

between ability-based EI with both personality and cognitive intelligence. This

leads me to my second and third hypothesis, which is identical to study one.

84

H2 an ability-based measure of EI is distinct from the Big Five personality

factors.

H3 an ability-based measure of EI is related to IQ but distinguishable

from it.

This study also looked at the relative contribution of a self-report EI

measure. There is growing research to suggest that mixed models or self-

report measures of EI correlate significantly with personality (Ciarrochi et al.,

2000; Ciarrochi et al., 2001; MacCann et al., 2004. Thus the fourth hypothesis

is:-

H4 Self-report EI measures will correlate substantiality with personality

factors, in particular the Big Five personality domains as measured by

already well-established personality instruments.

Returning to notion that with respect to leadership research, the true

test perhaps lays not whether EI is conceptualised via either an ability or mixed

approach, but more with the ability of EI to predict over and above already well

established constructs such as conscientious or analytical intelligence (Caruso et

al., 2006). Chapter two firmly established the differences between ability-based

EI models and those defined as mixed model of EI. Ability-based models are

seen as being related to intelligence and quite distinct from personality, where

85

as mixed models of EI overlap substantially with personality. In this chapter I

also offer theoretical reasons why an ability-based model of EI would be related

to leadership. Thus my final hypothesis rest with the premise that:

H5 Self-report EI measures will show less incremental validity than

ability-based measures of EI, once we control for traditional personality

and cognitive reasoning measures in predicting leadership effectiveness.

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 122 managers from a large Australian Public Service

organisation. Managers who did not complete the main battery of measures or

whose performance ratings were not accessible were then excluded leaving a

final sample of 117 managers (56 men, 60 women, 1 unreported; mean age

40.54, SD = 8.95).

Participants’ mean tenure within the organisation was approximately 15

years. The level of qualifications amongst the sample was quite impressive

with approximately 32% reported to have completed a masters degree or

higher; 22% reported to have completed a postgraduate diploma or certificate;

33% reported to have completed an undergraduate degree and 4% reported to

have completed some form of associate diploma or certificate.

The sample is also well representing of the Australian Public Service

(APS) in terms of age and gender with a Sate of the Service report by the

86

Australian Public Service Commission (2004b) showing that the average age

across all APS organisations is 41 years, with woman representing 53% of the

workforce.

Procedure

Participants were administered a battery of psychological tests that assessed

personality, reasoning ability, and both an ability and mixed models of EI.

Participants self reported their performance management results (i.e., their

scores on achieving business outcomes and dealing effectively with people). In

exchange for their participation, individuals were provided with a confidential

feedback report on their results on each of the instruments (refer to appendix c

for an example of a report).

Materials

The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT™) v 2.0

The MSCEIT™ v.2.0 is an ability measure of EI requiring participants to

complete a set of tasks associated with either perceiving emotion, using

emotion, understanding emotional information or managing emotions (Mayer et

al., 2002). It contains 141 items which are broken down into eight tasks, which

are further divided into four branches of abilities including (a) perceiving

emotion, (b) using emotion to facilitate thought, (c) understanding emotion,

and (d) managing emotions. The MSCEIT™ can be scored via one of two

methods - the “general consensus” method or the “expert consensus”

approach. For this study the general consensus method was employed as it

uses a larger normative sample.

87

In regards to the coefficient alphas, the results reflect moderate to high

internal consistencies for each of the four branch level scores with reliabilities of

α = 0.67 for the full scale, α = 0.75 for managing emotions, α = 0.70 for

understanding emotion, α =0.78 for using emotion, and α = 0.76 for perceiving

emotion. These values are consistent with the research to date on the

MSCEIT™, which has also shown promising validity studies across a diverse

range of psychological constructs (see Palmer et al., in press; Mayer et al.,

2000; Mayer et al., 2003; Roberts et al., 2001).

The Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT)

Given space limitations in this study, I could not include every self-report

measure of EI that exists in the literature. I thus sought a measure that was

representative of self-report measures and mixed models of EI in general. The

SUEIT was developed after an extensive factor analytic study involving five of

the predominant measures of EI (Palmer 2003; Palmer & Stough 2001). Four

of these were commonly used self-report measures of EI including the BarOn

Emotional Quotient Inventory (Bar-On, 1997), the Trait Meta-Mood Scale

(Salovey et al., 1995), the twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale-II (TAS-20;

Bagby, Taylor & Parker, 1994a,b), and the Emotional Intelligence Scale (EIS,

Schutte et al., 1997). In addition to representing a number of central EI

dimensions, the SUEIT also had the advantage of focusing on EI in the

workplace, rather than general EI.

The SUEIT consists of 65 items that ask participants to indicate the

extent to which a particular statement is true of the way they typically think,

feel and act at work (on a five-point scale: 1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 =

88

sometimes, 4 = usually, 5 = always). The SUEIT report provides an overall EI

score that indicates a participant’s general workplace EI, and five sub-scale

scores as outline in chapter 3.

The SUEIT EI model bears considerable overlap with other mixed models

and measures of EI (Palmer 2003; Palmer & Stough 2001). For example, one

of the most popular theories within the EI mixed model paradigm is the

framework of EI put forward by Goleman (1998 & 2001). Goleman (2001)

defines EI as (1) the capacity to recognize emotions in oneself (self-awareness;

(2) the capacity to regulate emotions in the self (self-management); (3) the

capacity to recognize emotions in others (social awareness); and (4) the

capacity to regulate emotions in others (relationship management). Goleman’s

model appears to fit with the SUEIT taxonomic model of EI above. Further

evidence to support the notion that the SUEIT™ is a mixed model of EI lay with

the questions used to measure EI that appear to be somewhat similar to

questions used to examine the comprehensive Five-Factor Model of personality.

For example, the Costa and McCrae (1992) NEO Personality Inventory Revised

has one such item as “I am always able to keep my feelings under control”.

This compares with the SUEIT item of “I find it difficult to control strong

emotions”. There are many other items within the SUEIT that appear to share

considerable content overlap with the NEO PI-R items (David, 2003).

These results reflect high internal consistencies for each of the five sub-

scales (emotional recognition and expression α = 0.74; emotions direct

cognition α = 0.69; understanding of emotions external α = 0.78; emotional

management α = 0.73 and emotional control α = 0.76), and total SUEIT EI

89

score (α = 0.72). These results generally support the published coefficients

alphas for the SUEIT, which also reflect a high degree of internal consistency.

There is also growing research to support the SUEIT’s discriminate validity with

self-reported transformational leadership style (see Palmer and Stough, 2001;

Palmer et al., 2003; Palmer et al., 2001).

Measuring Personality via the 16PF

Participants completed the well validated Sixteen Personality Factor

(16PF) questionnaire (Conn & Rieke, 1998). The 16PF was discussed in chapter

three.

Measuring Cognitive Ability - Factor B Reasoning

The 16PF primary factor B examines what is described as Reasoning.

Factor B is generally used as a quick measure of general mental ability due to

its brevity and moderately high relationship with measures of intelligence (Conn

& Rieke, 1988). The scale measures three areas of general reasoning ability,

namely verbal, numerical, and logical reasoning in a 15-item scale. The scale

has an overall coefficient alpha of .80 and has been shown to correlate with

other general ability measures such as the Information Inventory (r = .61) and

the Culture Fair Intelligence Test (r = .51).

90

Measuring Leadership Effectiveness via an Annual Appraisal

The Australia Public Service performance-based pay system involves a

combination of both expectancy and goal-setting theories. Expectancy theory

comprises three central themes, that is an employees understanding of their

performance goals and belief they possesses the abilities to achieve these

goals. Secondly, an employee believes that if they perform to the level

specified by their performance goals, substantive performance rewards will be

forthcoming and thirdly, the performance rewards are believed to be

worthwhile to justify the extra effort (O’Donnell & O’Brian, 2000).

Goal-setting theory maintains that a merit pay system will improve

employee performance where goals are specified, challenging and accepted by

employees during their performance appraisal process (O’Donnell & O’Brian,

2000).

The annual appraisal is a formal feedback discussion between a manager

and an executive about work performance. The purpose of the annual

appraisal is to review an executive’s performance against their business plans,

sometimes referred to as performance and development agreement (PDA).

There are two focuses placed on the annual appraisal: (1) Has the individual

attained organisational outcomes or what has been achieved, and (2) How has

the individual guided and motivated people in reaching these business

outcomes? Examples of the attainment of organisational outcomes include

whether occupational health premiums have been decreased, whether external

charter standards have been met, whether the specific area has delivered on

key government initiatives, or whether tax revenue targets have been achieved.

91

This section of the PDA is always expressed in terms of both deliverable and

measurable targets.

The focus on guiding and motivating people requires leaders to

demonstrate core leadership behaviours as outlined by the Australian Public

Service Commission (APSC) Leadership Capability Framework. Figure 2 displays

this framework.

Figure 2. Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) Leadership Capability

Framework

92

The framework has five core leadership capabilities: (1) Shapes strategic

thinking (i.e., someone who inspires a sense of purpose and direction; focuses

strategically; harnesses information and opportunities; and shows judgment,

intelligence and commonsense); (2) Achieves results (i.e., someone who builds

organisational capability and responsiveness; marshals professional expertise;

ensures closure and delivers on intended results; and steers and implements

changes and deals with uncertainty); (3) Cultivates productive working

relationships (i.e., someone who nurtures internal and external relationships;

values individual differences and diversity; guides, mentors and develops

people; and facilitates co-operation and partnerships); (4) Communicates with

influence (i.e., someone who communicates clearly; listens, understands and

adapts to an audience; and negotiates persuasively) and (5) Exemplifies

personal drive and integrity (i.e., someone who engages with risk and shows

personal courage; commits to action; displays resilience; and demonstrates

self-awareness and a commitment to personal development).

To assist in the labelling of each element of the PDA, the first section of

the PDA will be described as Business Outcomes Achieved, whereas the

second component will be described as Effective Interpersonal Behaviours

as it aligns itself with the APSC leadership framework. Both the business

outcomes achieved and effective interpersonal behaviours are initially rated on

a five point scale (1 to 5) by the participant’s direct manager. The meaning of

the five ratings discussed earlier are repeated here:- (5) Exceptional -

Performance well beyond expectations, breaking new ground, producing

outcomes of considerable value to the organisation, often quite unanticipated;

93

(4) Superior - Achievement has been consistently high on the range of

indicators, behaviours, capabilities and any leadership role throughout the

financial year; (3) Fully Effective - Good and meritorious achievement. Has

achieved standard as detailed in performance agreement for both business

outputs and behaviours; (2) Borderline Performance - has slipped below

standard as detailed in performance agreement for either business outputs

and/or behaviours; and (1) Unsatisfactory - Continued failure to achieve

expected standard.

An important integrity aspect of the appraisal process is the fact that the

ratings for both business outcomes achieved and leadership behaviours go

through a series of checks before they are finalised (refer to figure 3 for an

illustration of the performance management process). An individual executive

will first collate evidence about his or her performance, which is further

supplemented by the executive’s direct manager who also collates evidence on

their performance. The aim of this is to identify if specific business targets

have been met. During the appraisal discussion, both the executive and direct

manager will review business objectives and outcomes, review the executive

behaviour against the leadership framework and agree on interim ratings for

both the business outcomes achieved and alignment of leadership behaviours

components.

A third party committee then moderates the interim ratings, and

generally, individuals displaying superior or exceptional performances are highly

scrutinised by both department and corporate assurance processes. The

importance of the corporate assurance process becomes particularly evident

94

when one considers that executive directors are entitled to performance pay

should their individual performance ratings reach a certain level. The higher

the performance ratings, the higher the performance based pay they are

entitled to receive. There is also strong evidence to suggest that correlations

between managers and peers are high (Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988).

Manager

Executive Officer

Specific targetsbeen met?

Independently collect andevidence

Independently collect andevidence

PDA Discussion

Review original objectives & outcomes

Review executive behaviours against leadership framework

Review any learning & development plans

Reviewevidence

Agree on interim ratings

Performanceratings

What & How

Manager -Employee

Corporate Assurance Committee Departments PerformanceAssurance Committee

Final Ratings

Feed

back

to

the

Exec

utiv

e O

ffic

er

Figure 3. Illustration of the Performance Management Cycle

Consistent with the validity of this rating procedure, the business

outcomes achieved and effective interpersonal behaviours components have

been shown to correlate significantly with internal peer 360 performance

ratings, r = .52 (Rosete, 2004). In addition, past research has supported the

validity of this sort of rating system (McEvoy and Beatty, 1989; Hogan et al.,

95

1994; Management Advisory Committee 2001; Corporate Leadership Council,

2002). For example, McEvoy and Beatty (1989) examined the predictive

validity of performance evaluations compared to assessment centre ratings and

concluded that performance ratings were as effective as assessment centre

data in forecasting performance seven years later.

Based on data from 437 publicly traded companies, McDonald and Smith

(1995) demonstrated that companies with performance management programs

outperformed companies without such programs on a wide range of financial

and productivity measures. For example, higher profits, higher stock value,

high sales growth per employee and lower real growth in numbers of

employees. This is strong evidence to support the notion that performance

ratings are a valid tool for measuring leadership effectiveness.

96

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Internal Reliabilities

Ability-Based EI - The MSCEIT™

Overall, the raw MSCEIT™ sample mean of .49 (SD = .05) scored similarly to

the general consensus scoring normative sample (M = .51; SD = .06) as

reported for the MSCEIT™ user’s manual (Mayer, et al, 2002). In all four of the

branch level scores and for the overall EI score, the mean scores fell within the

average range (see table 12).

In regards to the coefficient alphas, the results reflect moderate to high

internal consistencies for each of the four branch level scores and total

MSCEIT™ EI score, with the highest in the understanding emotion branch level

score. These results are generally lower then the published coefficients alphas

for the MSCEIT™. Further coefficient alpha analysis was carried out on the

inter-correlations among the five sub-scales and total MSCEIT™ EI score (see

Table 13).

In a review of the correlations between the four-branch level scores of

the MSCEIT™ and the total MSCEIT™ EI score, we find average to high

correlations. This is expected as the total MSCEIT™ EI is comprised of each of

the respective branch level scores and in line with what is reported in the user’s

manual (Mayer, et al, 2002). Table 13 also shows that there is generally a

positive manifold of correlations between the sub-scales themselves. The sizes

of these correlations are generally lower than that reported in the user’s manual

97

(Mayer, et al, 2002). Overall, the size of these correlations suggests that the

branch level scales are distinct yet related facets, and that the MSCEIT™ is

measuring a unifactoral construct of EI.

98

Table 12

Descriptive Statistics for the MSCEIT™

2 Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso, 2002

99

Table 13

Pearson Correlations among the MSCEIT™ Branch Levels

MSCEIT™ Perceiving

Emotion

Using Emotion Understanding

Emotions

Managing

Emotions

Emotional

Intelligence

Perceiving Emotion (–) .48** .16 .26** .79**

Using Emotion (–) .19* .34** .74**

Understanding Emotions (–) .38** .45**

Managing Emotions (–) .54**

Emotional Intelligence (–)

* p < .05, ** p < .01

100

Self-Report EI - The SUEIT

Descriptive statistics for the SUEIT EI score, and five sub-scales are presented

in Table 14. Overall, the sample mean SUEIT EI of 218.83 (SD = 22.28) scored

similarly to the normative sample (M = 226.75; SD = 17.25) as reported for the

workplace SUEIT (Palmer and Stough, 2001).

In four of the five sub-scales, and for the overall EI score, the mean

percentile scores fell within the average range, whereas the Emotions Direct

Cognition (EDC) subscale fell within the low range. The EDC subscales measure

the “extent to which emotions and emotional knowledge is incorporated in

decision making and/or problem solving” (p.6.). The results indicate that

generally, executives within this organisation may tend to exhibit a very

analytical or technically oriented decision-making style where decisions at work

are predominantly made on facts and technical information (Palmer and

Stough, 2003).

In regards to the coefficient alphas, the results reflect high internal

consistencies for each of the five sub-scales and total SUEIT EI score, with the

highest in the EDC sub-scale. These results generally support the published

coefficients alphas for the SUEIT, which also reflect a high degree of internal

consistency. Further coefficient alpha analysis was carried out on the inter-

correlations among the five sub-scales and total SUEIT EI score (see Table 15).

In a review of the correlations between the five sub-scales of the SUEIT

and the total SUEIT EI score, we find very high correlations. This is expected

as the total SUEIT EI is comprised of each of the respective sub-scales and in

101

line with what is reported for the workplace SUEIT (Palmer and Stough, 2001).

Table 15 also shows that there is generally a positive manifold of correlations

between the sub-scales themselves. The size of these correlations is generally

higher than that reported for the workplace SUEIT (Palmer and Stough, 2001).

In particular, there is a substantial correlation between the Understanding

Others Emotions and Emotional Management with the sub-scales sharing

approximately 36% of the variance in this data set. Higher inter-correlation

was found between Emotional Control and Emotional Management suggesting

that these scales share approximately 49% of the variance in this data set.

102

Table 14

Descriptive Statistics for the SUEIT Factors

3 Palmer and Stough, 2001

103

Table 15

Pearson Correlations among the SUEIT Factors

SUEIT Emo Rec Und Emo Emo Cog Emo Mgt Emo Con EI Score

Emotional Recognition & Expression (–) .45** .36** .41** .30** .72**

Understanding Others’ Emotions (–) .22* .60** .51** .84**

Emotions Direct Cognition (–) .10 -.08 .48**

Emotional Management (–) .70** .78**

Emotional Control (–) .64**

Emotional Intelligence Score (–)

Emo Rec = Emotional Recognition and Expression; Und Emo = Understanding Others Emotions; Emo Cog = Emotions Direct Cognition; Emo

Mgt = Emotional Management; Emo Con = Emotional Control. * p < .05, ** p < .01

104

Personality – The 16PF

Descriptive statistics for the 16PF primary factors are presented in table 16. For

the primary scales, mean scores between 4 and 6 indicate normal average

range of functioning. Overall, the sixteen primary scales tended to be between

4 and 6 with minimum and maximum scores generally being between 1 and 10.

These results indicate that the population was in fact quite normal, with

proportional numbers of executives exhibiting the breadth of personality

dimensions one would be expected in any normal population. The exception

was Reasoning which had a mean of 7.5 (SD = 1.5).

Table 17 shows the correlations between primary factors. The majority of

primary factors were correlated at alpha levels of .01 or .05 with Extraversion

with the exception of the correlations between Emotional Stability, Rule

Consciousness, Sensitivity, Abstractedness, Apprehension, and Perfectionism,

which were not significant. Other primary factors that correlated with

significant numbers of other primary factors at alpha levels of .01 or .05 include

Tension, Self Reliance, Openness to Change, Privateness, Social Boldness and

Liveliness. With the exception of Extraversion, no other primary factors

correlated with the primary factor of Reasoning.

105

Table 16

Descriptive Statistics for the 16PF primary Factors

Primary Factor Min Max Mean SD

Warmth 1 10 4.52 1.93

Reasoning 3 10 7.5 1.50

Emotional Stability 1 9 5.27 1.84

Dominance 1 10 4.87 2.03

Liveliness 1 9 4.80 2.13

Consciousness 1 8 4.21 1.73

Social Boldness 1 9 4.24 2.04

Sensitivity 2 10 6.19 1.98

Vigilance 2 10 5.19 1.73

Abstractedness 2 10 5.98 2.21

Privateness 1 10 6.10 2.32

Apprehension 2 10 5.83 1.96

Openness to Change 1 10 5.99 2.02

Self Reliance 3 10 6.73 2.17

Perfectionism 1 8 4.16 1.66

Tension 2 10 6.45 1.84

106

Table 17

Pearson Correlations among the 16PF Primary Factors

War Reas Emot Domi Live Rule Soci Sens Vigi Abst Priv Appr Open Self Perf Tens

Warmth (–) -.19* .11 .23* .41** -.00 .55** .16 -.31** -.01 -.56** -.03 .33** -.48** -.18 -.21*

Reasoning (–) .09 .04 -.09 -.16 -.14 .05 -.17 .09 .02 .03 .15 .03 -.12 -.09

Emotional Stab. (–) .36** .18 .10 .30** -.20* -.21* .27** -.30** .59** .20* -.29** .22* -.45**

Dominance (–) .33** -.04 .48** -.12 -.08 -.06 -.31** -.35** .40** -.20* .07 -.04

Liveliness (–) -.07 .51** -.13 -.20* -.19* -.52** -.23* .22* -.57** -.12 -.16

Rule (–) -.01 -.13 -.14 -.18 -.03 .08 -.24* -.12 .39** -.15

Social Boldness (–) -.05 -.20* -.15 -.58** -.34** .32** -.51** -.03 -.23*

Sensitivity (–) .07 .32** .01 .20* .08 .21* -.07 .27**

Vigilance (–) .14 .38** -.03 -.08 .44** .17 .23*

Abstractedness (–) .08 .16 .40** .29** -.38** .11

Privateness (–) .12 -.27** .60** .13 .21*

Apprehension (–) -.27** .17 -.19* .29**

Openness (–) -.20* -.17 -.27**

Self Reliance (–) .11 .33**

Perfectionism (–) -.02

Tension (–)

107

Warm = Warmth; Reas = Reasoning; Emot = Emotional Stability; Domi = Dominance; Live = Liveliness; Rule = Rule Consciousness; Soci =

Social Boldness; Sens = Sensitivity; Vigi = Vigilance; Abst = Abstractedness; Priv = privateness; Appr = Apprehension; Open = Openness to

Change; Self = Self Reliance; Perf = Perfectionism; Tens = Tension. * p < .05, ** p < .01

108

Cognitive Ability – Factor B

The Reasoning scale of the 16PF had a mean of 7.5 (SD = 1.5). The relatively

high mean in this study suggests that as a group, the participants are generally

more intelligent, brighter, and have higher general mental capacity than the

normal population, operating at the 84 percentile.

Correlational Analyses

Leadership Effectiveness

Pearson correlation coefficients were used to examine if any relationship existed

between the total EI score of the MSCEIT™ with both business outcomes

achieved and effective interpersonal behaviour ratings (see Table 18). The

results indicated that higher ability EI was associated with better performance.

In addition, all of the EI subscales correlated with effective interpersonal

behaviour performance ratings (perceiving emotion r = .44, p<.01; using

emotion r = .26, p<.01; understanding emotion r = .24, p<.01; and managing

emotion r = .24, p<.01), and two subscales, perceiving (r = .26, p<.05) and

managing emotions (r = .17, p<.05) correlated with the business outcomes

achieved performance ratings. These results support hypothesis one that

ability-based EI is related to a leader’s effectiveness in being able to achieve

organisational goals through the obtainment of higher performance.

In contrast, no significant correlations were found between total SUEIT

EI scores and any of the performance management measures. Only the sub-

branch factors of emotional management (r = .22, p<.05) and emotional

109

control (r = .24, p<.05) correlated significantly with one aspect of the

performance rating, namely an individual’s alignment to effective interpersonal

behaviours.

There were no significant correlations between the five global factors or

sixteen primary factors with performance ratings.

Table 18

Correlations Coefficients between the MSCEIT™, SUEIT, Personality, Reasoning

Ability and Performance Management Ratings

BOA

Performance

Ratings

EIB

Performance

Ratings

Ability-Based EI (i.e., MSCEIT™)

Emotional intelligence .26** .52**

Perceiving emotions .19* .44**

Using emotions .15 .26**

Understanding emotions .07 .32**

Managing emotions .17* .24**

Self-reported EI (i.e., SUEIT)

Emotional intelligence .09 .14

Emotional recognition .07 .02

Understanding others .00 -.00

Emotions direct cognition .03 .09

Emotional management .09 .22*

Emotional control .18 .24*

Personality Factors

Warmth -.02 -.00

Emotional Stability .13 .10

Dominance .12 -.00

Liveliness .03 -.09

110

Consciousness -.10 -.11

Social Boldness .02 -.06

Sensitivity -.07 -.11

Vigilance -.21 -.19

Abstractedness .21 .09

Privateness -.19 -.13

Apprehension -.07 -.07

Openness to Change .20 .13

Self Reliance -.13 -.09

Perfectionism -.06 -.14

Tension -.05 -.12

Extraversion .08 .02

Anxiety -.14 -.14

Tough Mindedness -.12 -.02

Independence .12 .00

Self Control -.15 -.08

Cognitive Intelligence

Factor B Reasoning -.00 .12

BOA = Business Outcomes Achieved; EIB = Effective Interpersonal Behaviours. * p <

.05; ** p < .01. A bonferroni adjustment was undertaken for the 16 personality items.

Values at the .05 and .01 level were not treated as significant for the personality

variable.

111

Emotional Intelligence and Personality

Self report measures of emotional intelligence – SUEIT.

In respect to the SUEIT EI measure and the 16 PF, Table 19 and 20 show

significant correlations between many of the global and primary personality

measures and the total EI score, as well as many of the five subscales of the

SUEIT. This supports the fourth hypothesis in that self-report EI measures

correlate significantly with many of the primary and global personality factors as

measured through the 16PF.

112

Table 19

Correlations Between 16PF Global Factors and SUEIT

Personality

Factors

Emotional

Recognition

Understanding

Others

Emotions

Direct

Emotional

Management

Emotional

Control

Emotional

Intelligence Extraversion 0.57** 0.27** 0.34** 0.43** 0.21* 0.52**

Anxiety -0.18* -0.16 -0.00 -0.45** -0.43** 0.35**

Tough -0.34** -0.18* -0.36** -0.05 -0.08 -0.29**

Independence 0.42** 0.29** 0.24** 0.32** 0.24** 0.43**

Self Control -0.22* -0.04 -0.22** 0.13 0.14 -0.06

* p < .05, ** p < .01

113

Table 20 Correlations Between 16PF Primary Factors and SUEIT

Personality

Factors

Emotional

Recognition

Understanding

Others Emotions

Emotions Direct

Cognition

Emotional

Management

Emotional Control Emotional

Intelligence

Warmth 0.44** 0.22** 0.45** 0.26** 0.08 0.42**

Reasoning 0.10 -0.07 -0.02 -0.09 0.15 0.01

Emotional Stability 0.21* 0.11 -0.08 0.42** 0.39** 0.29**

Dominance 0.39** 0.25** 0.21* 0.23** 0.21* 0.37**

Liveliness 0.34** 0.23** 0.10 0.29** 0.07 0.29**

Consciousness -0.11 0.01 -0.02 0.12 0.15 0.04

Social Boldness 0.45** 0.34** 0.24** 0.45** 0.31** 0.51**

Sensitivity 0.22* 0.12 0.21* -0.04 0.03 0.15

Vigilance -0.38** -0.12 -0.20 -0.19 -0.28** -0.34**

Abstractedness 0.00 -0.03 0.15 -0.23* -0.09 -0.05

Privateness -0.65** -0.21* -0.31** -0.40** -0.20* -0.50**

Apprehension -0.06 -0.18 0.06 -0.33* -0.23* -0.21*

Openness to Change 0.30** 0.19* 0.24** 0.21* 0.17 0.32**

Self Reliance -0.38** -0.15 -0.28** -0.35** -0.22* -0.39**

Perfectionism -0.19* 0.02 -0.29** 0.15 0.11 -0.06

Tension 0.02 -0.02 -0.01 -0.30** -0.35** 0.19*

* p < .05, ** p < .01

114

Ability measures of emotional intelligence - MSCEIT™

Table 21 significant correlations were found between total EI score and anxiety

(r = -.28). At the four branched level (see table 22) small correlations were

found between vigilance (r =-0.26) and apprehension (r = -0.21) and

perceiving emotion at p < 0.01. Similarly, emotional stability (r = 0.15, p <

0.05), social boldness (r = 0.26, p < 0.05) and vigilance (r = -0.22, p < 0.01)

correlated with managing emotion. Only reasoning (r = 0.30, p < 0.05)

correlated significantly with understanding emotion and apprehension (r = -

.024) with using emotion. These results support previous research and the

second hypothesis, which showed that MSCEIT™ scores are distinguishable

from personality scores (Brackett & Mayer, 2003; Brackett et al., 2003).

Table 21

Correlations Between 16PF Global Factors and MSCEIT™

Personality

Factors

Emotional

Intelligence

Perceiving

Emotions

Using

Emotions

Understanding

Emotions

Managing

Emotions

Extraversion .15 .06 .17 .10 .22

Anxiety -.28** -.22* -.24* -.06 -.28

Tough Mindedness -.07 .05 -.04 -.16 .14

Independence .08 -.07 .10 .08 .18

Self Control .01 .07 -.02 -.19 .00

* p < .05, ** p < .01

115

Table 22

Correlations Between 16PF Primary Factors and MSCEIT™

Personality Factors Emotional

Intelligence

Perceiving

Emotions

Using

Emotions

Understanding

Emotions

Managing

Emotions

Warmth .09 .03 .12 .08 .16

Reasoning .11 .12 -.07 .30** -.02

Emotional Stability .18 .14 .18 -.00 .15*

Dominance .08 -.03 .07 .07 .13

Liveliness .06 -.00 .12 .08 .13

Consciousness -.07 .00 -.07 -.19 -.01

Social Boldness .12 .00 .15 .09 .26*

Sensitivity .05 .01 .00 .10 .00

Vigilance -.25** -.26** -.09 -.11 -.22**

Abstractedness -.06 -.15 -.05 .16 .04

Privateness -.20 -.11 -.15 -.17 .23

Apprehension -.24 -.21** -.24** .00 -.22

Openness to Change .09 -.01 .07 .09 .17

Self Reliance -.09 -.09 -.15 .04 -.14

Perfectionism .03 .01 .01 -.08 .11

Tension -.11 -.03 -.13 -.05 -.22

116

Emotional Intelligence and Reasoning Intelligence

In respects to reasoning ability table 23 shows that the ability EI sub-scale

understanding emotion was positively related to reasoning scale. The results

provide further support to the notion that the ability EI measure is tapping into

the intelligence domain and therefore supporting the third hypothesis.

Table 24 shows that the self-report EI measure did relate to

reasoning ability.

Self Report Measures of EI versus Ability Measures of EI

In examining the relationship between the SUEIT and MSCEIT™, it appears that

the SUEIT subscales of Emotional Management and Emotional Control correlate

modestly at either the .01 or .05 levels with the MSCEIT™ four branch levels

(see table 25).

117

Table 23

Correlations Between Reasoning Ability and MSCEIT™

Cognitive Factors Emotional

Intelligence

Perceiving

Emotions

Using Emotions Understanding

Emotions

Managing

Emotions

Reasoning .11 .14 -.07 .31** -.03

* p < .05; ** p < .01.

Table 24

Correlations Between Reasoning Ability and SUEIT

Cognitive

Factors

Emotional

Recognition &

Understanding

Others

Emotions

Direct

Emotional

Management

Emotional

Control

Emotional

Intelligence

Reasoning .10 .07 -.02 -.09 .15 .01

118

Table 25

Correlations Between EI Measures (Ability Versus Self-Report)

Emotional

Recognition &

Expression

Understanding

Others

Emotions

Emotions

Direct

Cognition

Emotional

Management

Emotional

Control

SUEIT EI

Perceiving Emotions 0.12 0.06 -0.01 0.27** 0.33** 0.21*

Using Emotions -0.00 0.16 -0.00 0.21* 0.20* 0.16

Understanding Emotions 0.15 0.09 0.03 0.19* 0.25** 0.20*

Managing Emotions 0.09 0.14 0.12 0.33** 0.28** 0.27**

MSCEIT EI 0.13 0.15 0.05 0.35** 0.37** 0.30**

* p < .05; ** p < .01.

119

119

Predicting Leadership Effectiveness

Hierarchical Regression Analyses

It has already been established there is a relationship between ability-based EI

and performance, although the predictive validity was examined in study one

the incremental validity of EI in predicting leadership outcomes is yet to be

determined. I next carried out a series of hierarchical regression analyses in

order to determine if ability measures of EI related to performance after

controlling for Big Five personality factors and reasoning ability. Reasoning

ability was entered in Step one, the five global personality factors on Step two

and ability EI were entered in step three.

Table 26 shows the results of the hierarchical regression analyses with

the achieve business outcomes performance measure. The ability EI model

was a significant predictor of the “business outcomes achieved” ratings, after

controlling for both reasoning and the Big Five personality dimensions (β = .24,

p < .01; R2Change = .05, p < .01). Also, it wasn’t until the EI measure was

entered into the equation that a significant model was achieved, F (7, 112) =

2.31, p < .05.

120

120

Table 26

Hierarchical regression analysis of Reasoning, Five Global Personality Factors and Ability-Based EI with the Business Outcomes

Achieved Performance measure

Step Predictors R2 ∆R2 ∆F

1 Reasoning .00 .00 .00

2 Reasoning, Self Control, Independence, Anxiety, Extraversion, Tough Mindedness .08 .08 1.89

3 Reasoning, Self Control, Independence, Anxiety, Extraversion, Tough Mindedness,

MSCEIT Emotional Intelligence

.13 .05 6.22*

* p < .05.

121

In respects to the self-report measure of EI, table 27 shows the results

of the hierarchical regression analyses with the achieve business outcomes

performance measure. When the SUEIT EI score was introduced into step 3 no

change in the variance occurred (R2change = .00, FChange = .01), F (7,108) =

1.59, p > .05. The addition did not increase the amount of variance in the

model. Only the second hierarchical step produce a significant model.

122

Table 27

Hierarchical regression analysis of Reasoning, Five Global Personality Factors and Self-Report EI with the Business Outcomes

Achieved Performance measure

Step Predictors R2 ∆R2 ∆F

1 Reasoning .00 .00 .01

2 Reasoning, Self Control, Independence, Anxiety, Extraversion, Tough Mindedness .10 .01 2.24*

3 Reasoning, Self Control, Independence, Anxiety, Extraversion, Tough Mindedness, SUEIT

Emotional Intelligence

.10 .00 .01

* p < .05.

123

The results of the first two hierarchical regressions support hypothesis 5

in that the self-report EI measures showed no incremental validity, whereas the

ability-based measures of EI accounted for some of the variance once we

control for traditional personality and cognitive reasoning measures in

predicting a leaders ability to achieve business outcomes. The next set of

hierarchical regression examines the second element of the performance

system that is an executive’s ability to demonstrate effective interpersonal

behaviours.

Similar to the first set of regressions reasoning ability was entered in

Step one, the five global personality factors on Step two and ability EI or self-

report EI were entered in step three. Table 28 shows the results of the

hierarchical regression analyses with the effective interpersonal behaviour

performance measure. The ability EI model was a significant predictor of the

“effective interpersonal behaviour” ratings, after controlling for both reasoning

and the Big Five personality dimensions (β = .49, p < .01; R2change = .22, p <

.01). Also, it wasn’t until the EI measure was entered into the equation that a

significant model was achieved, F (7, 112) = 5.86, p < .01.

124

Table 28

Hierarchical regression analysis of Reasoning, Five Global Personality Factors and Ability-Based EI with the Effective Interpersonal

Behaviour Performance measure

Step Predictors R2 ∆R2 ∆F

1 Reasoning .02 .02 1.71

2 Reasoning, Self Control, Independence, Anxiety, Extraversion, Tough Mindedness .06 .05 1.06

3 Reasoning, Self Control, Independence, Anxiety, Extraversion, Tough Mindedness,

MSCEIT Emotional Intelligence

.28 .22 31.97**

** p < .01.

125

125

Table 29 shows the results of the hierarchical regression analyses with

the effective interpersonal behaviour performance measure. When the SUEIT

EI score was introduced into step 3 a small change in the variance occurred

(R2change = .01, FChange = 1.60), F (7,108) = 1.44, p > .05. The addition of a

self-report EI only managed to increase about 1 per cent of variance in the

model. However, all three hierarchical steps failed to produce a significant

model.

126

Table 29

Hierarchical regression analysis of Reasoning, Five Global Personality Factors and Self-Report EI with the Effective Interpersonal

Behaviour Performance measure

Step Predictors R2 ∆R2 ∆F

1 Reasoning .02 .02 2.01

2 Reasoning, Self Control, Independence, Anxiety, Extraversion, Tough Mindedness .08 .06 1.24

3 Reasoning, Self Control, Independence, Anxiety, Extraversion, Tough Mindedness, SUEIT

Emotional Intelligence

.09 .01 1.60

127

The results of the previous two hierarchical regressions further support

hypothesis 5 in that the self-report EI measures showed less incremental

validity than ability-based measures of EI which account for an additional 22

per cent in the variance, once we control for traditional personality and

cognitive reasoning measures in predicting leadership effectiveness.

An interesting theoretical question is whether ability-based EI can predict

above and beyond self-report EI measures if entered into the same regression

equation with both personality and reasoning. A potential criticism is that as

self-report EI measure is related to other independent variables, there

potentially could be an undetected suppression effect. In the next set of

regression equations, reasoning ability is entered in step one, Big Five

personality factors in step two, the self-report EI measure in step three and

ability EI were entered in step four. This was undertaken for both performance

measures (i.e., achieves business outcomes and effective interpersonal

behaviours). Tables 30 and 31 show the results of these analyses.

In both regressions analyses the ability EI model was a significant

predictor of both performance measure ratings, even after we control for an

additional independent variable in self-report EI. Predicting an additional 5

percent of the variance in the achieve business outcomes performance measure

and 18 in the effective interpersonal behaviour performance measure.

128

Table 30

Hierarchical regression analysis of Reasoning, Five Global Personality Factors, Self-Report EI and Ability-Based EI with the Business

Outcomes Achieved Performance measure

Step Predictors R2 ∆R2 ∆F

1 Reasoning .00 .00 .01

2 Reasoning, Self Control, Independence, Anxiety, Extraversion, Tough Mindedness .10 .10 2.24*

3 Reasoning, Self Control, Independence, Anxiety, Extraversion, Tough Mindedness, SUEIT

Emotional Intelligence

.10 .00 .01

4 Reasoning, Self Control, Independence, Anxiety, Extraversion, Tough Mindedness, SUEIT

Emotional Intelligence, MSCEIT Emotional Intelligence

.15 .05 5.99**

* p < .05, ** P < .01.

129

Table 31

Hierarchical regression analysis of Reasoning, Five Global Personality Factors, Self-Report EI and Ability-Based EI with the Effective

Interpersonal Behaviours Performance measure

Step Predictors R2 ∆R2 ∆F

1 Reasoning .02 .02 2.01

2 Reasoning, Self Control, Independence, Anxiety, Extraversion, Tough Mindedness .08 .06 1.24

3 Reasoning, Self Control, Independence, Anxiety, Extraversion, Tough Mindedness, SUEIT

Emotional Intelligence

.09 .01 1.60

4 Reasoning, Self Control, Independence, Anxiety, Extraversion, Tough Mindedness, SUEIT

Emotional Intelligence, MSCEIT Emotional Intelligence

.27 .18 24.43**

** p < .01.

130

Discussion

The findings suggest that the managers who achieve the best business

outcomes are the ones who score higher on an EI ability test, and manifest

certain personality characteristics (e.g., high openness, low vigilance, and low

privateness). Importantly, the ability measure of EI was able to predict

effective leadership over and above well-established workplace measures, such

as reasoning ability and personality. In contrast, self-reported measures of EI

had little to offer over and above these well-established measures. These

results may have important implications for how we engage in the performance

management, selection, and development of executives.

Self-reported EI

The SUIET tended to correlate moderately with personality, especially with

extraversion, anxiety, and independence. These results are consistent with

evidence that suggests self-report measures of EI overlap with well-established

personality traits or behaviours (Ciarrochi et al., 2000; Ciarrochi et al., 2001;

MacCann et al., 2004).

On a practical level, these results suggest that self-report EI may not add

significant incremental value over personality in predicting leadership success,

although previous research has shown it can predict quality of life outcomes,

like life satisfaction and depression (Ciarrochi et al., 2001; Austin et al.,

2005ab). The SUEIT failed to correlate with a leader’s ability to achieve

business outcomes. This was one of two key performance measures used

131

within the workplace to measure leadership effectiveness. However, while the

SUEIT did correlate with the effective interpersonal behaviours performance

measure at a subscale level, the regression model with personality and

reasoning ability was found to be non-significant.

With limited prospects of either predictive or incremental validity there

appears to be little empirical justification for the use of self-report SUEIT

measures in the selection of executives (Landy, 2005; MacCann et al., 2004).

This is an important point as personality tests and self-report EI measures are

often used in the recruitment of executives and general staff. With minimum or

no incremental validity, and with considerably less predictive validity than

personality measures, there is little to justify the expense and time dedicated to

using the self-report SUEIT measures in the selection of executive staff.

In looking more closely at the self-report EI subscales, the results

suggest that at least two of the five sub-scales are heavily dependent on the

Emotional Management sub-scale. The Emotional Management sub-scale is

essentially the ability to manage both positive and negative emotions within

oneself and others (Palmer and Stough, 2001). One could argue that an

individual’s level of emotional control, and their ability to understand others’

emotions is dependent on their level of emotional management.

In looking at the relationship between self-report EI and ability-based EI

there were some small correlations found amongst a few of the subscales. This

is not surprising as the SUEIT was developed using factors taken directly from

the MSCEIT™ predecessor the MEIS. Therefore, some overlap between the

measures would be expected. Although as was shown in these studies, the

132

ability-based EI show considerable promise in terms of both predictive and

incremental validity.

Ability Based Measures of EI

Ability-based EI demonstrated a strong relationship with job

performance. An analysis of the individual subscales revealed that the most

important scales were perceiving emotions and managing emotions. These

scales related to the extent that executives achieved business outcomes. An

individual’s display of leadership behaviours, the capacity to perceive emotion,

use emotions, understand emotion and manage emotion all related to how

effectively an executive achieved their business outcomes.

George (2000) suggests that leadership involves the development of a

collective sense of goals, instilling in others both knowledge and appreciation of

certain work activities, and generating a sense of excitement, confidence, and

trust. One could argue that these elements all require a leader to use their

emotions to enhance how they communicate to subordinates, which in turn

would assist them to effectively carry out the role of a leader. Not surprisingly,

we find all four elements are critical in enabling a leader to meet business

outcomes. The ability to perceive emotions provides an awareness of emotions

and the ability to accurately read others emotions, especially subordinates.

Using emotions may provide a means to generate ideas within a team.

Understanding emotions may help people to have insight into what motivates

people and others’ points of view. Finally, managing emotions may allow a

133

leader to prevent unhelpful emotions from impacting their own behaviour and

may help them to manage other people’s emotions to enhance team and

individual performance (Caruso & Salovey, 2004). Thus, all four elements may

enhance a leader’s ability to communicate. These results are certainly

consistent with this hypothesis.

Of particular interest was the branch of perceiving emotion, which in

both performance ratings had the highest effect sizes. A leader who is skilled in

perceiving emotion would be described as someone who knows what people

feel, reads people accurately, is good at recognising their own feelings and can

express their feelings appropriately (Caruso & Salovey, 2004). These skills are

particularly important as it allows a leader to accurately capture important

social data around them, in particular the ability to “read between the lines.”

The present results have potential implications for how we manage

performance, selection and development of executives. In terms of

performance management, it is important for an executive to both deliver

business outcomes, and also deal effectively with colleagues and staff

(Management Advisory Committee, 2001). It may be common for technical

leaders to have the ability to achieve business outcomes but not necessarily

demonstrate core leadership behaviours. For example, a technical specialist

may perform complex tasks tenaciously and manage to produce business

outputs, but may be ineffective at managing his or her subordinates, leading to

issues of staff turnover and underperformance. The results of this study show

that EI may be useful in identifying who is and is not likely to deal effectively

with colleagues and staff. Furthermore, they also show which leaders are likely

134

to achieve business outcomes. Organisations who wish to maximise their ability

to meet business outcomes therefore have the choice to either recruit for these

abilities or to attempt to further develop these abilities in their top executives.

135

CHAPTER 5

General Discussion

Ability Based Emotional Intelligence and Leadership Effectiveness

Strong relationships were found overall between ability-based emotional

intelligence and a leader’s ability to achieve organisational goals or achieve high

multi-rater feedback ratings from subordinates, peers and direct managers.

The results held even after controlling for reasoning ability, verbal ability,

performance ability, and personality. In the second study, the effect sizes (“r”)

were in the order of .26 for the achievement of business outcomes, and .52 for

the effective interpersonal behaviours performance outcomes. They were

slightly lower in our first study, which consisted of a significantly smaller

sample. In regards to multi-rater leadership feedback ratings, significant effect

sizes ranged in the order of .3. These effect levels are considered to be large

by many researchers (see Barrick & Mount, 1991; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998).

For example, research has consistently shown that personality traits, such as

conscientiousness, are related to most job performance criteria and typically

have an effect size in the order of .2 (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Schmidt and

Hunter (1998) have also shown that in analysing 85 years of research in

personnel selection, the General Mental Ability (GMA) tests have one of the

highest effect sizes at .51. Hermelin and Robertson (2001), in a similar study

of selection methods, found validity coefficients of 0.45.

136

Another strength of these findings is that the observed relationships

between ability-based EI occurred with different methods of measuring

leadership effectiveness. For example, they occurred with senior manager

performance ratings on achieved business outcomes, effective interpersonal

behaviour ratings, multi-rater ratings on leadership behaviours, and indices of

performance pay. Therefore, these results would be unlikely to suffer from

problems of inflated correlation due to method variance (e.g., as when you

correlate self-reports of EI and self reports of leadership).

In addition to showing criterion relevant validity, the ability measure of

emotional intelligence was also distinctive from other relevant workplace

measures. Across a number of different analyses, the same constant effect was

found, mainly that an ability-based model of EI was able to predict leadership

effectiveness over and above well-established measures of personality,

reasoning ability, verbal ability, and performance ability.

The ability-based model of emotional intelligence can be broken down

into four branches of emotional abilities, including (a) perceiving emotion, (b)

using emotion to facilitate thought, (c) understanding emotion, and (d)

managing emotions. Each of these emotional abilities were further examined to

see which ones were more important in enabling a leader to achieve business

outcomes, and be rated as effective leaders by their subordinates, peers and

managers.

The branch of Perceiving Emotion was consistently found to be the

most significant predictor of leadership success. This finding is consistent with

previous research. For example, Lopes et al. (2003) used an ability-based EI

137

measure and reported that financial analysts who scored higher on their ability

to perceived emotion were also viewed by their managers and peers as

displaying greater levels of leadership potential (r = .38). A study by

Livingstone and Day (2005), also using an ability-based EI measure, found

military personnel who were better at perceiving emotions in people would also

rate being more satisfied with their job. In another workplace study using an

ability-based EI measure, Kerr et al. (2006) found that supervisors who scored

higher on perceiving emotion were likely to be rated positively by their

subordinates as displaying leadership ability (r = .43). This is in line with our

findings where those executives who were high on the perceiving emotional

intelligence ability were more likely to receive higher multi-rater ratings on the

leadership dimension exemplifies personal drive and integrity. This research

clearly shows that perceiving emotions is linked to leadership performance.

The next step in research would be to identify what interpersonal skills are

being used, and how they are being employed by executives to achieve their

business outcomes.

So, what does it mean to be effective in perceiving emotion? Although

speculative, a leader who is skilled in perceiving emotion can be described as

someone who knows what people feel, reads people accurately, is good at

recognising their own feelings, and can express their feelings appropriately

(Caruso & Salovey, 2004). It is argued that these skills are particularly

important as it allows a leader to accurately capture important social data

around them, in particular the ability to “read between the lines” when dealing

with people, which in turn can impact the organisation’s bottom line. For

138

example, a leader who can accurately identify that their staff are confused or

not aligned to the new business strategy can alter their approach to ensure

business outcomes are met. It would be a naive leader who issues orders and

commands without observing how their staff react (Caruso and Wolfe, 2004).

Thus, the ability to perceive emotions appears important, as the ability to read

emotions within a situation seems closely related to how well one can respond

in that situation (George, 2000).

The ability to perceive emotions also includes identifying internal states.

In other words, a leader must also be able to accurately identify their own

feelings (i.e., self-awareness). Research suggests that the ability to perceive

emotions within oneself accurately is related to the ability to assess them in

others (Bryson, 2004). In addition, leaders who are more self-aware tend to

possess heightened levels of interpersonal control (Sosik & Megerian, 1999),

which in turn can enable them to prevent unhelpful emotions from getting in

the way. For example, an executive may be less likely to react impulsively

when angry. An executive may also be less likely to express aversive emotions

(since they are aware of their feelings). In other words, being aware of

emotions may give leaders the flexibility to act either consistently with their

emotions (e.g., anger leading to assertiveness), or inconsistently with their

emotions (anger but keeping ones mouth shut), whichever behaviour best

serves their goals. The executive who has no idea they are angry or sad is,

presumably, more likely to be pushed around by those emotions (George,

2000). They may therefore respond inappropriately or in a manner that does

not facilitate goal achievement and alienates their staff.

139

We also know that a leader’s emotional expression tends to impact both

follower affect and perceptions of leadership effectiveness. For example, Lewis

(2000) found that when a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) displayed an active

negative emotion (i.e., anger) as opposed to passive negative emotion (i.e,

sadness), subordinates would tend to exhibit a higher level of nervousness and

a lower level of relaxation. Also, those CEOs who exhibited a neutral emotional

mood as opposed to negative emotional mood (ie., anger or sadness) would be

rated as more effective by their subordinates.

The second of the Mayer and Salovey (1997) four-branch ability-based

model, facilitating thought, is concerned with the ability to integrate basic

emotional experiences into one’s thought processes, and to access, generate

and use emotions to facilitate problem solving, reasoning, decision-making, and

creativity (Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Bryson, 2004).

The results found a relationship between the display of leadership

behaviours and a leader’s ability to use emotional thought in their reasoning,

decision-making and problem solving. From a leadership perspective, emotions

direct a person’s attention to important changes, and enable one to consider

multiple perspectives. Different forms of reasoning are facilitated by different

kinds of moods. For example, if we turn to the area of sports, the coach is

often required to infuse the team with energy and positive thinking, especially if

they are considered the underdogs. In this positive mood, the team is able to

generate new ideas and enthusiasm to assist them to win the game (Caruso &

Wolfe, 2004). This analogy can be carried over to the corporate world. Teams

with positive moods are more likely to generate more creative ideas, and teams

140

with negative moods are less likely to make errors when dealing with detailed

work, like accounts (Forgas, 2001).

The third branch of the Mayer and Salovey (1997) four-branch ability-

based model, understanding emotions, is considered the most cognitive of the

four, and has the highest correlation to abstract reasoning and general

intelligence (Mayer, et al., 2000). This premise is supported by this research,

and is explored further in the section below concerning emotional intelligence

and cognitive/reasoning ability. The ability to understand emotion was

significantly related to the leadership behaviours exhibited by leaders even after

controlling for both personality and reasoning. From a multi-rater perspective,

these leadership behaviours included the ability to shapes strategic thinking, to

cultivate productive working relationships, and to communicate with influence.

With regards to the perspective of shapes strategic thinking leadership

behaviour, I speculate that the ability to understand emotion may allow a

leader to acknowledge that some subordinates may be resistant to future

strategic direction. As a result, this insight helps them to create a shared

commitment by understanding how subordinates may react to planned change.

This fits neatly with our review of the literature in chapter two which sees

leaders as facilitators of change.

The leadership behaviour of cultivate productive working relationships is

all about a leader who demonstrates a capacity to nurture relationships, value

individual differences, and guides, mentors and develops others. By applying

the understanding emotions ability to one’s workplace, a leader is likely to be in

a better position to harness an understanding of the differences within a team

141

in order to anticipate reactions and enhance interactions amongst team

members. This would be facilitated by the third leadership behaviour,

communication with influence. By understanding emotions, I propose that

leaders are in a better position to seek understanding from team members and

to tailor their communication style and messages accordingly.

The study undertaken by Lopes et al. (2003) appears to be the only

other research available using the MSCEIT™ which supports these findings.

Their findings showed that financial analysts who scored higher on their ability

to understand emotion were not only more likely to be viewed by their

managers as displaying greater levels of leadership potential (r = .34), but were

also likely to hold higher positions within the organisation (r = .36).

Understanding emotions is the ability to think accurately about emotions.

It involves being able to connect situations with certain emotions. It also

involves knowing that it is possible to feel several conflicting feelings in certain

situations. Understanding what leads to various emotions is a critical

component of emotional intelligence. For instance, annoyance and irritation

can lead to rage if the cause of the irritation continues and intensifies.

Knowledge of how emotions combine and change over time is important in our

dealings with other people, and in enhancing our self-understanding (Mayer &

Salovey, 1997). In an organisational setting, effective leadership would mean

understanding the feelings and emotions of subordinates, peers, and clients.

Leaders who can understand the impact of an event on,for example, the morale

of their team, the political implications on a peer, or the needs of a client,

would be better equipped to handle the resulting emotions and adjust their

142

behaviours accordingly to maximise the chances of success. In essence, it can

facilitate a leader’s ability to cultivate productive working relationships with

people, an important component of the SELC Framework as discussed earlier.

The last branch of the Mayer and Salovey (1997) four-branch ability-

based model is managing emotion. This research found that this ability played

a significant role in a leader’s ability to meet business outcomes and display

leadership behaviours in the workplace. These results are in keeping with

previous studies.

Lopes, Brackett, Nezlek, Schutz, Sellin and Salovey (2004) conducted

two studies which found the ability to manage emotions was associated with

the quality of social interactions. In the first study, Lopes et al. (in press)

looked at the quality of relationships between a participant and two of their

closest friends. They found the managing emotions subscale to be positively

correlated with participants’ self-reports and friends’ ratings of positive

interactions and tendency to provide emotional support. The second study

expands the circle of friends to include anyone who interacted with the

participants over a two-week period. Results showed that managing emotions

scores were positively related to the perceived quality of interactions with

members of the opposite sex.

In a similar study looking at social relationships, Lopes et al. (2003)

explored the link between ability-based emotional intelligence and the perceived

quality of one’s interpersonal relationship. Results showed that global

satisfaction with one’s relationship was associated with the ability to manage

one’s emotions.

143

The study undertaken by Lopes et al. (2003) showed that financial

analysts who scored higher on their ability to manage emotion were more likely

to be viewed by their managers as displaying greater levels of leadership

potential (r = .41). They were also more likely to hold higher positions within

the organisation (r = .40), and more likely to receive higher percentage merit

increases (r = .40).

Managing emotions means that a person feels their feelings, but then

uses these feelings in a judicious way, rather than acting on them without

thinking. For example, anger (like many emotions) is often misunderstood.

Anger is not necessarily a “bad” thing to feel. In fact, anger can help to

overcome adversity, bias, and injustice. Anger can arise when someone feels

frustrated, cheated, or taken advantage of. Yet anger, if left to itself, can be

blinding, and can cause people to act in negative or antisocial ways. Managing

emotions relates to a person's ability to feel the emotion, no matter what the

emotion may be, but then to combine thinking with this emotion in order to

make the best possible decisions and take the most effective actions (Mayer &

Salovey, 1997).

We know from the research that a leader’s mood and emotions can be

viewed as another source of information which a leader can capitalise on in

order to assist them with making more effective decisions, and with developing

more effective coping strategies to workplace events. For example, in a study

of sale groups, George and Bettenhausen (1990) found that leaders’ positive

moods were positively associated with the groups’ pro-social behaviour, and

negatively associated with the groups’ turnover rate. George (1995) found that

144

followers led by sales managers who experienced positive moods at work

tended to provide higher quality customer service than those led by sales

managers who did not experience positive moods.

The exploration of the Mayer and Salovey (1997) four-branch ability

model would not be complete without linking it to the Australian Public Service

(APS) Senior Executive Leadership Capability Framework (SELCF). Although I

am hypothesising, the link is important as the SELCF forms the major element

for determining which leadership behaviours are expected from executives

working within the APS. This relationship has already been tentatively explored

through our earlier comments regarding understanding emotion and cultivating

productive working relationships. What is apparent is that the ability-based EI

model can provide a clear understanding of the emotional processes that

underline certain leadership behaviours, which I theoretically apply to the APS

SELCF (see table 32).

145

Table 32

Emotional Intelligence Processes and Leadership Capability Framework*

146

147

Table 34 displays numerous leadership behaviours that are central to the

APS SELC Framework. It shows that there are numerous emotional processes

that underline aspects of leadership.

Mixed Models of Emotional Intelligence

This dissertation has highlighted that not all EI models are alike in being able to

predict effective leadership. While the ability-based model of EI seems more

successful in predicting leadership effectiveness, the self-report EI model was

somewhat less convincing. This research used the SUEIT taxonomic model of

emotional intelligence which has five domains: (1) emotional recognition and

expression (in oneself); (2) emotions direct cognition; (3) understanding of

emotions external; (4) emotional management and (5) emotional control. As

the SUEIT was derived from other well known self-report EI models (e.g., TAS

20 & BarOn), and shares similar characteristics to other well known mixed

models (e.g., Goleman’s emotional competency model), it was thought that the

SUEIT was representative of mixed model measures of emotional intelligence.

There was evidence that some aspects of the SUEIT related to leadership

performance. Leaders who reported that they are good at managing and

controlling their emotions also had higher performance ratings for their

effective interpersonal skills.

Significant correlations were also found across the 16 primary personality

factors and the five global personality subscales, with r reaching .65 in some

cases. Leaders who reported themselves high on emotional intelligence also

148

tended to be high on warmth and social boldness, and low on privateness. One

cannot help but postulate that perhaps these behaviours can be attributed to

people who generally want to be around other people and be noticed, and

reflect someone who injects considerable energy into initiating and maintaining

social relationships (i.e., an extrovert).

It is generally accepted that personality traits only predict about 10% of

what makes a successful leader. This was consistent with these studies where

personality predicted around 8 percent of the variance in leadership

performance. The self-report SUEIT model appeared to explain considerably

less of the variance than personality.

These results appear consistent with the growing evidence that suggests

self-report measures of EI overlap with well-established measures of personality

traits or behaviours (Ciarrochi et al., 2000; Ciarrochi et al., 2001; MacCann et

al., 2004). From a research perspective, these results seem to confirm some of

the criticisms that have been levelled at EI, which describe EI as little more

than a loose conglomeration of extended personality. These criticisms appear

to be more applicable to self-report EI measures like the SUEIT than ability-

based EI measures.

On a practical level, these results suggest that self-report SUEIT may

only add trivial incremental values, at best, over personality in predicting

leadership success. One major difficulty with the overlap between self-reported

SUEIT and personality is the difficulty in distinguishing whether a result

involving self-reported SUEIT is really just a replication of a previous result

using a similar personality measure. For example, research has clearly

149

demonstrated a link between self-esteem and mental health (Ciarrochi, Scott,

Deane & Heaven, 2004). Thus, if an EI measure correlates substantially with

self-esteem and mental health, is the EI test measuring something new, or is it

replicating previous self-esteem effects? These results support previous

research by David (2003) that reported self-reports, particularly the SUEIT, are

substantially and significantly correlated with the Big Five factors of personality.

Self-report measures of EI also raise the potential problem of response

bias. A general problem found with all self-report inventories is that a response

may be influenced by various biases that do not relate to the construct, which

the inventory is trying to measure (Mathews, Zeidner and Roberts, 2002).

These biases include impression management, where there is a deliberate

attempt from a respondent to present themselves with particular qualities (also

knowing as faking), and self-deception, which is largely an unconscious biasing

of response, and response styles biases, which include forms of acquiescence

patterns of responding (i.e., tending to answer ‘yes’ - Mathews, Zeidner &

Roberts, 2002). Steps can be taken to reduce these biases, like seeking

additional corroborative evidence for high scorers. However, this just adds

another layer of complexity to the usefulness of self-report measures in an

organisational setting.

However, one cannot assume that all self-report EI measures are

useless. Indeed, as demonstrated in this research, there appears some

evidence of the utility of the SUEIT, and it can be distinguished from other

personality constructs when predicting leadership ratings at least at the

subscale level. Specifically, the SUEIT was able to predict at least one measure

150

of leadership effectiveness (i.e. effective interpersonal behaviours) over and

above personality. Other research has found support for the discriminant and

incremental validity of self-report measures of emotional intelligence to

personality traits (e.g., Petrides & Furnham, 2003).

Some researchers are now questioning why we even need to show

incremental validity between self-report EI and personality. Petrides and

Furnham (2001) provide a theoretical positions for explaining the strong

relationship between self-report or mixed models of emotional intelligence and

personality. They argue that the construing of emotional intelligence through

ability based measures cannot, and will not, produce the same findings

construed through self-report inventories. Here I would agree in light of these

dissertation findings. Petrides and Furnham argue that the ability versus mixed

model distinction is not particularly useful and instead offered a different

categorisation for the emotional intelligence paradigm. The first category is

ability emotional intelligence or cognitive-emotional ability, which is concerned

with actual emotional ability and measured with maximum-performance

measures. This view of emotional intelligence fits best within the psychometric

intelligence domain. The second is Trait emotional intelligence or emotional

self-efficacy. Trait emotional intelligence refers to a constellation of emotion-

related self-perceptions and dispositions assessed through self-report and is

best anchored within the personality domain.

Petrides and Furnham argue that Trait EI is a distinguishable, lower-

order construct of the Big Five personality framework (Petrides & Furham,

2000, 2001, 2003). As Trait EI belongs to the lower domain of personality

151

traits, this in itself would imply that trait EI would be associated with higher-

order personality dimensions like the Big Five (Perez, Petridies and Furham,

2005). This view of self-report emotional intelligence fits very well with our

findings, in which the EI measure overlapped substantially with personality.

Other results showed that the overall MSCEIT™ EI score did not

correlate with any of the sixteen personality factors. Some of the subscales of

the MSCEIT™ correlated modestly with warmth, vigilance, privateness, and

social boldness. These results support previous research which showed that

MSCEIT™ scores are distinguishable from personality (Brackett & Mayer, 2003;

Brackett et al., in press) and again fits with Petrides and Furham’s (2001) view

that elements of the ability EI domain do have some small overlap with

personality dispositions.

Emotional Intelligence with Verbal, Performance, and Reasoning

Ability

Both studies found that senior executives participating in this study were at

least one standard deviation above the normal population mean IQ score of

100. All were functioning between above average to superior levels.

Executives were also in the 84th percentile for reasoning ability. These results

are consistent with other organisational studies that show a strong and

consistent association between general intelligence and leadership. According

to Stogdill’s (1948, 1974) review of the leadership research, 48 studies found

that leaders are more intelligent than followers are. Leaders are expected to

152

gather, integrate, and analyse information in order to develop solutions and

solve complex problems. Leaders are also expected to be able to adapt to

changing business conditions and respond accordingly (Corporate Leadership

Council, 2003; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991). Therefore, testing for cognitive

ability in potential leaders is essential.

This study generally found little support that verbal, performance or

reasoning ability influenced leadership effectiveness. Perhaps most executives

were already performing at a higher cognitive level, and the range of IQ scores

are therefore restricted. Sternberg (2002) argues that the predictive value of

intelligence for leadership may vary across situations and is not as high as

much of the literature suggests. Both studies support this statement. Perhaps

once people obtain a certain level of cognitive intelligence, having higher

intelligence makes little difference (Sternberg & Vroom, 2002).

The mixed model of EI did not correlate with reasoning ability, drawing

further support to Petrides and Furham (2003) view that Trait emotional

intelligence cannot be classified as intelligence in the traditional sense.

Mayer et al. (2000) postulated that for ability-based emotional

intelligence to meet the traditional standards for an intelligence, it needs to

satisfy three criteria. It must be operationalised as a set of abilities, it must

correlate with pre-existing measures if intelligence, and the abilities should

develop with age and experience. Study one found moderate correlations

between the ability-based model of emotional intelligence and verbal

intelligence, performance intelligence, and full-scale intelligence. This supports

the second criteria. Study two revealed a positive correlation with reasoning

153

ability and Understanding Emotion, which is considered the most cognitive

branch of the Mayer and Salovey (1997) ability-based model. Together, these

results are consistent with the available research that has found the MSCEIT™

scores to relate modestly to a range of intelligence measures, including verbal

SAT scores (Brackett, Mayer, & Warner, 2003) and the vocabulary subscale on

the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale III (Lopes, Salovey, & Straus, 2003).

In summary, the findings of study one and two suggest that executives

who measure higher on ability-based emotional intelligence are more likely to

achieve business outcomes and be considered as effective leaders by their

subordinates and direct manager. Ability-based EI was distinct from

personality, and modestly related to verbal, performance, or reasoning ability.

Self-report models or, as Petrides and Furham (2003) describe, Trait emotional

intelligence were generally unable to predict effective leadership once we

controlled for personality, and were in fact redundant with existing personality

dimensions and unrelated to either verbal, performance or reasoning ability.

Applying Emotional Intelligence to the Workplace

This research does not discount personality or verbal, performance, or

reasoning ability as important determinants of workplace performance,

including effective leadership. Instead, amongst highly selected and intelligent

leaders, ability-based measures predicted effective leadership better than

personality or verbal, performance, and reasoning ability.

154

In contrast, self-report EI may not add considerable incremental value

over personality, verbal, performance, or reasoning ability in predicting

leadership success, and is potentially redundant alongside already established

personality traits. I would then agree with leading researchers and academics

(e.g., Zeidner et al., 2004; Landy, 2005) that there appears to be little empirical

justification, to date, for the use of self-report EI measures in an applied setting

such as recruitment. With these findings in mind, this next section briefly

considers the application of an ability-based model of emotional intelligence in

work settings.

The Corporate Leadership Council (2002) conducted a quantitative

survey of 19,000 individuals at 34 organisations in order to identify the core

areas of building a high-performance workforce. They identified seven key

insights regarding drivers of individual performance, the performance

management system being one. They concluded that organisations must

involve line managers as champions of performance management activities and

must hold managers accountable for performance improvement. In addition,

organisations must support managers with multiple perspectives on

performance. Using a measure of emotional intelligence in leadership positions

would undoubtedly offer chief executive offers and other senior managers a

new and different perspective on a leaders performance.

In terms of the performance management system, it is important for an

executive to both deliver outputs (i.e., the “achieves business outcomes” of

performance), and deal effectively with colleagues and staff (i.e., the “effective

interpersonal behaviours” of performance – Management Advisory Committee,

155

2001). It may be common for technical leaders to have skills for the “achieve

business outcomes” but not the “effective interpersonal behaviours” of

performance. For example, a technical specialist may perform complex tasks

tenaciously and manage to produce business outputs, but may be ineffective at

managing his or her subordinates, leading to issues of staff turnover and

underperformance. The results of this study show that emotional intelligence

may be useful in identifying who is and is not likely to deal effectively with

colleagues and staff. Furthermore, the results also show which leaders are

likely to achieve business outcomes at a superior level. My view is that

emotional intelligence lends itself as another means of measuring an individual's

behaviour, providing insights into which executive is likely to achieve business

outcomes, especially when there is a high degree of relationship work involved.

Organisations who wish to maximise their ability to meet business outcomes

therefore have the choice to either recruit for these abilities or further develop

these abilities in their top executives.

With regards to selection, Viswesvaran and Ones (2002) suggest that

when it comes to general mental ability (GMA) measures, “…some embrace it

enthusiastically; some tolerate it; and some spend their entire careers looking

for ways to minimise the effects of GMA in personnel selection” (p. 213). This

highlights that there is still considerable disagreement on the role of GMA in

organisational settings.

Those advocating the use of GMA in an applied setting often turn to the

research conducted by Schmidt and Hunter (1998). Their article attempts to

statistically summarise a large body of data, collected over the last 85 years,

156

relating to selection methods used in personal and organisational psychology.

The article looked at 19 different selection processes from the perspective of

predicting further job performance and future learning. The top selection

processes that yield the highest predictive validity, in order, were work sample

tests (r = .54); structured interviews and GMA tests (both r = .51); peer ratings

(r = .49), and job knowledge tests (r = .48). The authors advocate the use of

GMA (also called general cognitive ability and general intelligence) as it can be

used in most positions and has a very high predictive validity. With high

predictive validity and versatility across most positions, the authors advocate

the use of GMA (also called general cognitive ability and general intelligence).

While work samples are more predictive, the authors argue that these tests are

more costly to develop (i.e., one need to be developed for each position), and

can only be used with applicants who already know the job or have been

trained for the occupation or job. The results of study one and two would

suggest that testing for emotional intelligence in leadership positions would also

be cost effective, does not require an applicant to have the prerequisite job

knowledge, and has the incremental predictive validity of traditional IQ

measures. EI may be particularly useful when the leaders need to be highly

selected, and have little variance in their IQ. Ability-based EI could potentially

increase the prediction of a selection exercise enabling significant costs savings.

A technique known as utility analysis best demonstrates this.

Utility analysis provides a method to evaluate how well particular

psychological tests perform when used to make decisions. Personnel selection

and recruitment agencies use it frequently (De-Corte, 1996; Murphy and

157

Davidshofer, 1988; Russell, Colella and Bobko, 1993). In a recent recruitment

activity, I was involved in the selection of 12 Senior Executives who are typically

on approximately $A 130,000 salary packages. Using the utility analysis

formula and incorporating high effect sizes as observed in this thesis, I found

the productivity gain for one year due to hiring based on the ability-based EI

measure rather than at random was 4 million Australian dollars. That is, if we

were to theoretical put a dollar value to the increase productivity expected in

recruiting employees with higher EI ability it would be in the millions in this

particular work setting. For the actual calculations, please refer to appendix D.

In reality, we would not select potential candidates at random but would use a

combination of methods, which would decrease the monetary value quoted

earlier. Clearly, the results of these studies show that the ability-base EI would

add significant value in a selection process within this environment.

Developing emotional intelligence is perhaps more problematic than

simply recruiting for these abilities. There has been a proliferation of different

emotional intelligence training programs offered to organisations over the past

decade. However, few have had a scientific evaluation of their ability to predict

workplace outcomes (Matthews et al., 2004). The ability-based model of

emotional intelligence at least lends itself to be measured and tested in an

applied setting. The Mayer and Salovey (1997) four-branch model also lends

itself to further interpreting the emotional aspects of leadership behaviours (as

outlined in our previous table 34) and therefore provides a model for

developing leadership ability. However, this is speculative. We are still

grappling with the question of whether we can develop emotional intelligence.

158

Clearly, further research is needed in the domain of emotional intelligence (a

topic for the next chapter) along with a discussion of the contributions of this

research and its limitations.

159

CHAPTER 6

Contributions of the Research, Limitations and Future Research

Directions

Contributions of the Research

A recent report by the Australian Attorney-General’s Department on managing

and sustaining the APS workforce highlighted that the public service is facing a

big challenge in continuing to attract, retain and develop the people it needs.

There is especially a need for the development of strategies for identifying and

developing future leaders in an employment environment that is characterised

as tight, with diminishing supply of younger workers projected to enter the

labour market in the next few decades (Management Advisory Committee,

2005). This dissertation potentially offers us some insight into what constitutes

an effective leader. We know from research that measuring leadership skill and

its impact on an organisation’s performance is particularly difficult. In part, this

is due to leadership performance being situational. Using the performance

management system as an anchor for measuring leadership ability to meet

business outcomes or display effective interpersonal skills, and a multi-rater

measure to examine more closely the behaviours exhibited by our leaders, this

dissertation was able to examine empirically the performance of leaders within

a large public service organisation and offer some unique insights into the

practice of leadership.

This dissertation sought to understand the relationship between a

160

leader’s effectiveness in being able to achieve business outcomes and display

effective interpersonal behaviours, as reflected by higher performance ratings,

and a leader’s effectiveness in leading people and being able to achieve higher

multi-rater feedback ratings from subordinates, peers and direct managers with

emotional intelligence. In doing so, this is the first piece of research to

empirically show a link between ability-based emotional intelligence and

effective leadership within the APS. These findings show that executive officers

potentially benefit from having a high degree of ability-based emotional

intelligence. EI may help them to function at a superior level and be perceived

by their subordinates, peers and manager as displaying leadership behaviours.

The literature to date has argued that, for emotional intelligence to have

some legitimacy in the workplace, it needs to show incremental value over both

traditional personality and cognitive reasoning measures in predicting workplace

outcomes like leadership effectiveness. This is the one of the first pieces of

research to empirically demonstrate that emotional intelligence can in fact

predict leadership effectiveness over already well-established measures of

personality and cognitive intelligence.

What this research also found is that not all measures of emotional

intelligence are equal. By examining two distinct measures of emotional

intelligence (an ability measure and self-report measure) these studies were

consistent with other research which suggests that self-report models of

emotional intelligence are largely redundant in being able to predict workplace

outcomes once we control for personality traits or reasoning ability. The

emotional intelligence model offered by Mayer and Salovey (1997) is the only

161

one that offers us something new, and other measures of emotional

intelligence, like the SUEIT model, are more aligned to reframed taxonomies of

personality or perceived emotional competency.

The final contribution of this dissertation is the examination of the

relationships between various models of emotional intelligence with personality

and cognitive intelligence. In doing so, this dissertation was able to generate

further reliability and validity statistics on both EI measures. This is particularly

important for the SUEIT, which is a relatively new self-report measure of EI and

currently suffers from limited peer-reviewed published statistics on its

psychometric properties. For the MSCEIT™, this dissertation was able to

expand its growing research, demonstrating its worth in an applied setting.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Despite the contributions of this dissertation, the results need to be interpreted

with caution owing to some methodological limitations. Firstly, this dissertation

was limited to a single Australian Public Service organisation. Thus, the results

may not be valid in other public or private sector organisations. Validation of

the current findings in other industries will help rule out industry type as an

important contingency factor (Delery & Doty, 1996). For example, it may be

that EI is most needed in workplaces that involve substantial social interaction,

and less needed in jobs that involve individuals working by themselves.

A second limitation of the results presented in this dissertation was the

measures used for cognitive intelligence and reasoning ability. There is little

162

doubt that the mostly widely accepted intelligence test is the Wechsler Adult

Intelligence Scale and associated tests. This dissertation did in fact use a

Wechsler measure of intelligence, but only in the first study. As such, the

dissertation was reliant on a measure of verbal, numerical, and logical

reasoning. While both the cognitive and reasoning ability results draw the

same conclusions, that the group of executives were at least one standard

deviation above the norm, we would need to seek further research with more

comprehensive measures of both crystallised and fluid intelligence if we are to

better understand how emotional intelligence relates to intelligence.

The EI measures themselves are not without their own limitations. For

example, the MSCEIT™ has received considerable criticism surrounding its

scoring methods (Roberts et al., 2001; MacCann et al., 2004). The two major

alternatives for scoring items on the MSCEIT™, as described in Chapter 2, is

through either general consenus scoring or expert consensus scoring. General

consensus scoring compares the participant’s responses to a normative

database of more than 5000 people. The expert consensus scoring compares

participant’s responses with the agreement of 21 international experts (Mayer,

et al., 2002). Critics, such as Matthews et al. (2004), point out that the general

consensus and expert consensus scoring methods have shown conflicting

results. However, these criticisms are largely directed at the precursor

instrument to the MSCEIT™, that is the Multi-Factorial Emotional Intelligence

Scale (MEIS). The MSCEIT expert ratings are based on a larger sample of

experts than the MIES, and show greater correspondence with consensus

scoring (Mayer et al., 2004a). Mayer et al. (2003) report correlations ranging

163

between .94 and .99 for the MSCEIT’s™ consensus and expert scores across all

subtests, and a correlation of .98 for the general EI composite.

This dissertation did not look at the differences between general

consensus and expert consensus scoring, choosing to use only the general

consensus scoring method recommended by the test publishers. As the

MSCEIT™ is still a relatively new measure, further research is needed on the

contributions that each form of scoring method may have on predicting

workplace outcomes. From a theoretical perspective, Mayer et al. (2003) found

that experts are more reliable judges and tend to confer on correct answers

more often where research has established clear criteria for potential answers.

Although the publishers of the MSCEIT™, Multi-Health Systems (MHS),

advocate for the use of the general consensus method, largely due to its large

sample base, all research published has shown that both consensus and expert

scoring methods are highly correlated.

The SUEIT also suffers from being a relatively new EI measure.

However, the SUEIT is built upon some of the more researched self-report EI

measures available (e.g., Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory and the twenty-

item Toronto Alexithymia Scale-II), and overall, the research is continually

showing that self-report EI measures are moderately to highly correlated with

personality.

The samples sizes for study 1 were also quite small and any

interpretation needs to take this into consideration. Although, the findings were

replicated in study two which had a significantly large sample size.

164

In conclusion, these results make an important contribution to the study

of emotional intelligence in a work setting, but leave a number of important

questions unanswered. First, research needs to evaluate: Why does EI relate

to performance? Does it relate to interpersonal effectiveness on the job, as is

suggested in the discussion? And does it relate to other aspects of

management, such as inspiring enthusiasm, or managing stressful jobs?

Second, given the correlational nature of the present study, which also another

limitation of this dissertation, research needs to evaluate whether EI predicts

future performance, or merely co-occurs with performance. I hypothesised that

EI leads to better executive performance. However, it is possible that good

executive performance leads to higher EI. One way to resolve this problem is

to conduct a longitudinal study that involves measuring EI before newly hired

executives start the job. This would allow one to establish if EI skills were likely

to be antecedents to managerial success. Third, research needs to examine

whether these results generalise across different occupational settings. Finally,

is EI more important in interpersonal settings, compared to settings that require

little interpersonal contact (e.g., some information technology jobs)? Our

finding of a reliable link between EI and executive performance should

encourage researchers to address these issues in future research.

165

REFERENCES

Aditya, R. N. & House, R. J. (2002). Interpersonal acumen and leadership

across cultures: Pointers from the GLOBE study. In R. E. Riggio, S. E.

Murphy & F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple Intelligences and Leadership.

Mahwah, NJ: Erbaum.

Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait names: A psycho-lexical study.

Psychological Monographs, 47.

Australian Public Service Commission. (2004a). Senior Executive Leadership

Capability Framework. Canberra, Australian Public Service Commission.

Australian Public Service Commission. (2004b). State of the Service Report.

Canberra, Australian Public Service Commission.

Arvey, R. D. & Murphy, K. R. (1998). Performance evaluation in work settings.

Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 141-168.

Ashakansy, N. M. & Daus, C. S. (2005). Rumors of the death of emotional

intelligence in organizational behaviour are vastly exaggerated. Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 26, 441-452.

Ashkanasy, N. M., Trevor-Roberts, E. & Kennedy, J. (2000). Leadership

attributes and cultural values in Australia and New Zealand compared:

An initial report based on "globe data". International Journal of

Organisational Behaviour, 2(3), 37-44.

Austin, E. J., Saklofske, D. H., & Egan, V. (2005a). Correlates of trait emotional

intelligence: results from Canadian and Scottish groups. Personality and

Individual Differences, 38(3): 547-558.

Austin, E. J., Saklofske, D. H. & Egan, V. (2005b). Personality, well-being and

health correlates of trait emotional intelligence. Personality and

Individual Differences, 38, 547-558.

Bagby, R. M., Parker, J. D. A. & Taylor, G. J. (1994a). The Twenty-Item Toronto

Alexithymia Scale - I. Item selection and cross validation of the factor

structure. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38(1), 23-32.

166

Bagby, R. M., Taylor, G. J. & Parker, J. D. A. (1994b). The Twenty-Item

Toronto Alexithymia Scale - II. Convergent, discriminant, and concurrent

validity. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38(1), 33-40.

Barling, J., Slater, F. & Kelloway, E. K. (2000). Transformational leadership and

emotional intelligence: an exploratory study. Leadership and

Organization Development Journal, 21(3): 157-161.

Bar-on, R. (1997). The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): Technical

manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.

Bar-on, R. (2004). The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): Rationale,

Description, and Summary of Psychometric Properties. In G. Geher

(Eds.), Measuring Emotional Intelligence: Common Ground and

Controversy (pp. 111-142). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishing.

Bar-on, R. (2005). The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence.

Psicothema, 17.

Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and

job performance: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26.

Barbuto, J.E. (1997). A critique of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and its

operationalization of Carl Jung's psychological types. Psychological

Report, 80, 611-625.

Bartone, P. T., Snook, S. A. & Tremble, T. R. (2002). Cognitive and Personality

Predictors of Leadership Performance in West Point Cadets. Military

Psychology, 14(4), 321 - 338.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New

York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990a). From transactional to transformational leadership:

Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19-31.

Bass, B. M. (1990b). Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory,

Research, and Managerial Applications. New York, NY: Free Press.

167

Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1990a). Transformational leadership development.

Manuel for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA:

Consulting Psychologist Press.

Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1990b). The implications of transactional and

transformational leadership for individual, team, and organizational

development. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 4,

231-272.

Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness

through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Benson, B. & Morrigan, P. A., (2000). Towards Knowledge Creating Leadership.

Canberra, Australian Taxation Office.

Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five factor approach to personality

description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187-215.

Blohowiak, D. (2003). Filling the Leadership Pipeline, Lead Well Institute.

Boyatzis, R. E., Goleman, D. & Hay/Mcber. (1999). Emotional Competency

Inventory. Philadelphia, PA: Hay Group.

Boyle, G.J. (1995). Myers-Briggs type Indicator (MBTI): Some psychometric

limitations. Australian psychologist, 30(1), 71-74.

Brackett, M. A. & Geher, G. (2006). Measuring emotional intelligence:

Paradigmatic diversity and common ground. In J. Ciarrochi, J. P. Forgas

& J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Intelligence and Everyday Life (pp. 27-50). New

York: Psychology Press.

Brackett, M. A., Lopes, P. N., Ivcevic, Z., Mayer, J. D. & Salovey, P. (2004).

Integrating Emotion and Cognition: The Role of Emotional Intelligence.

In D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, Emotion, and Cognition

(pp. 175-194). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Brackett, M. A. & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, and

incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1147-1158.

168

Bracett, M. A., Mayer, J. D. & Warner, R. M. (2003). Emotional intelligence and

its relation to everyday behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences,

36, 1387-1402.

Bray, D. & Howard, A. (1988). Career Growth and Human Resource Strategies.

Quorum Books.

Brody, N. (2000). History of Theories and Measurements of Intelligence. In R. J.

Sternberg (Eds.), Handbook of Intelligence (pp. 16-33). San. Francisco:

Jossey-Bass

Bryson, K. D. L. (2004). Managerial success and derailment: The relationship

between emotional intelligence and leadership (Doctorial dissertation,

The Fielding Graduate Institute). UMI No. 3159997.

Caruso, D. R., Bienn, B. & Kornacki, S. A. (2006). Emotional intelligence in the

workplace. In J. Ciarrochi, J. P. Forgas & J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Intelligence

and Everyday Life (pp. 187-205). New York: Psychology Press.

Caruso, D. R. & Salovey, P. (2004). The Emotionally Intelligent Manager. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Caruso, D. R. & Wolfe, C. J. (2004). Emotional Intelligence and Leadership

Development. In D.V. Day, S. Zaccaro, & S. Halpin (ed.). Leader

development for transforming organizations, (pp 237-263), Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum, 2004.

Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into

clusters. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38, 476–506.

Cattell, R. B. (1945). The description of personality: Principles [sic] findings in a

factor analysis. American Journal of Psychology, 58, 69–90.

Cattell, R. B. (1947). The ergic theory of attitude and sentiment measurement.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 7, 221-246.

Cattell, R. B. (1965). The scientific analysis of personality. Chicago: Aldine.

Cattell, R. B. (1987). Intelligence: Its structure, growth and action. New York:

Springer.

169

Chemers, M. M. (2000). Leadership research and theory: A functional

integration. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4(1), 27-

43.

Ciarrochi, J., Chan, A. & Bajgar, J., (2001). Measuring emotional intelligence in

adolescents. Personality and individual differences, 31(7), 1105 - 1119.

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. (2001). Measuring Emotional

Intelligence (EI). In J. Ciarrochi, J. Forgas, & J. Mayer (Eds.), Emotional

intelligence in everyday life: A scientific inquiry (pp.25-45). Philadelphia,

PA: Psychology Press.

Ciarrochi, J., Dean, F. P., & Anderson, S. (2002). Emotional intelligence

moderates the relationship between stress and mental health.

Personality & Individual Differences, 32(2), 197-209.

Ciarrochi, J. & Deane, F. P. (2001). Emotional competence and willingness to

seek help from professional and nonprofessional sources. British Journal

of Guidance and Counseling, 29: 233-246.

Ciarrochi, J., Scott, G., Deane, F. P. & Heaven, P. C. L. (2004). Relations

between social and emotional competence and mental health: A

construct validation study. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-

Behavior Therapy, 22, 171-188.

Corporate Leadership Council. (2002). Closing the performance gap: Driving

business results through performance management. Washington,

Corporate Executive Board.

Corporate Leadership Council. (2003). Assessment methods for identifying

leadership potential. Washington, Corporate Executive Board.

Con, S. R. & Rieke, M. L. (1998). The 16PF Fifth Edition Technical Manual.

Champaign, Illinos.: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.

170

Conte, J. M. (2005). A review and critique of emotional intelligence measures.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 433-440.

Cook, M. (1995). Performance appraisal and true performance. Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 10(7), 3-7.

Costa, P. T. & Mccrae, R. R. (1992). NEO-PI-R Professional Manual Revised.

Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Cox, C. J. & Cooper, C. L. (1989). The making of the British CEO: Childhood,

work experience, personality, and management style. Academy of

Management Executive, 3, 241-245.

Dai, D. Y. & Sternberg, R. J., Ed. (2004). Motivation, Emotion and Cognition.

London, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Daus, C. S. & Ashakansy, N. M. (2005). The case for the ability-based model of

emotional intelligence in organizational behaviour. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 26, 453-566.

Daus, C. S. & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2003). Will the real emotional intelligence

please stand up? On deconstructing the emotional intelligence debate.

The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist 41, 69-72.

David, S. (2003). Relationship of a measure of perceived emotional intelligence

to personality and impression management. 5th Industrial and

Organisational Psychology Conference, 28th June, Melbourne, Australia.

Davidson, J. E. & Downing, C. L. (2000). Contemporary Models of Intelligence.

In R. J. Sternberg (Eds.). Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Davies, M., Stankov, L. & Roberts, R. (1998). Emotional intelligence. In search

of an elusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

75(4), 989-1015.

Dawda, D. (1997). Personality or factor-analytically developed, lay person, self-

report, single-word, adjectival descriptors of global characteristics of

personality structure: The NEO Five Factor Model and skimming the

171

surface of wetlands of personality. Retrieved August 23, 2004, from

http://www.sfu.ca/~wwwpsycb/issues/1997/summer/dawda.html.

Dawda, D. & Hart, S. D. (2000). Assessing emotional intelligence: reliability and

validity of the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) in university

students. Personality and individual differences, 28, 797-812.

Day, A. L. & Carroll, S. A. (2003). Using an ability-based measure of emotional

intelligence to predict individual performance, group performance, and

group citizenship behaviours. Personality and individual differences,

36(6), 1443-1458.

De-Corte, W. (1996). Recruitment and selection decisions that maximise the

utility of a probationary selection to obtain a fixed quota of successful

selectees. Personnel Psychology, 49, 499-428.

Dee-Burnett, R., Johns, E. F., Russell, M. T. & Mead, A. D. (1997). 16PF Human

Resource Development Report Manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for

Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.

Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. (1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic human

resource management: Tests of universalistic, contingency, and

configurational performance predictions. Academy of Management

Journal, 39(4), 802-835.

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor

model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440.

Downey, L. A., Papageorgiou, V. & Stough, C. (2005). Examining the

relationship between leadership, emotional intelligence and intuition in

senior female managers. Leadership & Organization Development

Journal, 27(4), 250-265.

Dulewicz, V. & Higgs, M. (1998). Emotional intelligence: Managerial fad or valid

construct? Greenlands, Henley Management College.

Dulewicz, V. & Higgs, M. (1999). Can emotional intelligence be measured and

developed? Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 20(5),

242-252.

172

Dulewicz, V. & Higgs, M. (2000). Emotional intelligence - A review and

evaluation study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15(4), 341 - 372.

Edwards, M., Ayres, R. & Howard, C. (2003). Public Service Leadership:

Emerging Issues. Canberra, National Institute for Governance, University

of Canberra.

Forgas, J. P. (2001). The affect infusion model (AIM): An integrative theory of

mood effects on cognitive judgements. In L. L. Martin & G. L. Clore

(Eds.), Theories of mood and cognition: A user’s guidebook (pp. 99-134).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Fulmer, R. (1997). The evolving paradigm of leadership development.

Organizational Dynamics, 25, 59-73.

Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary geneis: An inquiry into its laws and consquences.

New York: Appleton.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of the Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences.

New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, W.L & Martinko, M. J. (1996). Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

to study managers: A literature review and research agenda. Journal of

Management, 22(1), 45-83.

Gardner, L. & Stough, C. (2002). Examining the relationship between leadership

and emotional intelligence in senior level managers. Leadership &

Organization Development Journal, 23(2), 68-78.

George, J. M. (1995). Leader positive mood and group performance: The case

of customer service. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 778-794.

George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional

intelligence. Human Relations, 53, 1027-1055.

George, J. M. & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behaviour,

sales performance, and turnover: A group level analysis in a service

context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 698-709.

173

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An Alternative “Description of Personality”: The Big-Five

Factor Structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-

1229.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. New York: Batam.

Goleman, D. (1998). Working with Emotional Intelligence. New York: Batam

Books.

Goleman, D. (2001). An EI-Based Theory of Performance. In C. Cherniss & D.

Goleman (Eds.), The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace. New York:

Bantam.

Harris, M.M. & Schaubroek, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-

peer, and peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41(1), 43-62.

Hermelin, E. & Robertson, I. T. (2001). A critique and standardization of meta-

analytic validity coefficients in personnel selection. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(3), 253-277.

Higgs, M. (2003). How can we make sense of leadership in the 21st century?

Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 24(5), 273-284.

Higgs, M. & Aitken, P. (2003). An exploration of the relationship between

emotional intelligence and leadership potential. Journal of Managerial

Psychology, 18(8), 814-823.

Higgs, M. and D. Rowland. (2000). Building change leadership capability: the

quest for change competence. Journal of Change Management, 1(2),

116–131.

Hogan, R., Curphy, G. & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership:

Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49(6), 493-504.

Howard, A., & Bray, D. W. (1990). Predictions of managerial success over long

periods of time: Lessons from the management progress study. In K. E.

Clark & M. B. Clark (Ed.), Measures of Leadership (pp. 113-143).

Greensboro, North Carolina: Center For Creative Leadership.

Howell, J. M. & Avolio, J. B. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional

174

leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: key predictors of

consolidated-business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,

78(6), 891-902.

Hunter, J. E. & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and unity of alternative predictors

of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72-98.

Hunter, J. E. (1986). Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes, job knowledge, and

job performance, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29(3), pp 340-362.

Jacobs, T. O. & Jacques, E. (1987). Leadership in complex systems. In J.

Zeidner (Ed.), Human productivity enhancement: Vol. 2. Organizations,

personnel and decision making (pp. 7-65). New York: Praeger.

Janovics, J. & Christiansen, N. D. (2002). Emotional intelligence in the

workplace. 16th Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial and

Organizational Psychology. San Diego, CA.

Kaplan, R. M. & Norton, D. P. (1994). The Balanced Scorecard: Harvard

Business School Press.

Kaplan, R. M. & Saccuzzo, D. P. (1989). Psychological Testing: Principles,

Applications, and Issues. California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Kerr, R., Garvin, J., Heaton, N. & Boyle, E. (2006). Emotional intelligence and

leadership effectiveness leadership. Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, 27(4), 265-279.

Kets De Vries, M. F. R. (1993). Leaders, Fools, Imposter. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Kirkaptrick, S. A. & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: do traits matter? Academy

of Management Executive, 5(3), 48-60.

Kotter, J. P. (2001). What Leaders Really Do. Harvard Business Review, 85-96.

Landy, F. J. (2005). Some historical and scientific issues related to research on

emotional intelligence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 411-424.

Lane, R. D., Quinlan, D. M. & Schwartz, G. E., (1990). The Levels of Emotional

Awareness Scale: A cognitive-development measure of emotion. Journal

175

of Personality Assessment, 55, 124-134.

Lewis, K. M. (2000). When leaders display emotion: how followers respond to

negative emotional expression of male and female leaders. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 21, 221-234.

Livingstone, H. A. & Day, A. L. (2005). Comparing the construct and criterion-

related validity of ability-based and mixed-model measures of emotional

intelligence. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65(5), 757-

779.

Locke, E. A. (2005). Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 26, 425-431.

Locke, E. A. & Latham, G. P. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting and Task

Performance. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Lopes, P. N., Brackett, M. A., Nezlak, J. B., Schutz, A., Sellin, I. & Salovey, P.

(2004). Emotional intelligence and social interaction. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1018-1034.

Lopes, P. N., Cote, S., Grewal, D., Kadis, J., Gall, M. & Salovey, P., (2003).

Evidence that Emotional Intelligence is Related to Job Performance,

Interpersonal Facilitation, Affect and Attitudes at Work, and Leadership

Potential. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P. & Straus, R. (2003). Emotional intelligence,

personality, and the perceived quality of social relationship. Personality

and Individual Differences, 35(3), 641-658.

Management Advisory Committee, (2001). Performance Management in the

Australian Public Service: A strategic framework. Canberra, Australian

Public Service Commission.

MacCann, C., Mathews, G., Zeidner, M. & Roberts, R. (2004). The assessment

of emotional intelligence: On frameworks, fissures, and the future. In G.

Geher (Eds.), Measuring Emotional Intelligence: Common Ground and

Controversy (pp. 19-50). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishing.

176

MacCann, C, Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., Roberts, R. D. (2003). Psychological

assessment of emotional intelligence: A review of self-report and

performance-based testing. Intemational Journal of Organizational

Analysis, 11, 247-274.

Martin, J. (2001). Profiting from Multiple Intelligences in the Workplace.

Burlington: Gower.

Mathews, G., Deary, I. J. & Whiteman, M. C., (2003). Personality Traits.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mathews, G., Zeidner, M. & Roberts, R. (2002). Emotional intelligence: Science

and myth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Mayer, J. D. (2001a). Primary divisions of personality and their scientific

contributions: From the trilogy-of-mind to the systems set. Journal for

the Theory of Behaviour, 31(4), 449 -477.

Mayer, J. D. (2001b). A field guide to emotional intelligence. Emotional

intelligence in everyday life: A scientific inquiry. Philadelphia, Psychology

Press.

Mayer, J. D. (2005). A tale of two visions: Can a new view of personality help

integrate psychology! American Psychologist, 60(4), 294-307.

Mayer, J. D. (2006). A new field guide to emotional intelligence. In J. Ciarrochi,

J. P. Forgas & J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Intelligence and Everyday Life (pp. 3-

26). New York: Psychology Press.

Mayer, J. D. (2007). Personality function and personality change. In J. Ciarrochi

& J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Applying EI: A practitioner guide (Chap. 5).

Psychological Press.

Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., and 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.), Handbook of Emotional Intelligence: Theory,

177

Development, Assessment, and Application at Home, School, and in the

Workplace (pp. 320-341). San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R. & Salovey, P. (2000b). Emotional intelligence meets

traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27(4), 267-298.

Mayer, J. D. & Geher, G. (1996). Emotional intelligence and the identification of

emotion. Intelligence, 22, 89-113.

Mayer, J. D. & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey

& D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional

intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3-31). New York: Basic Books.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P. & Caruso, D. (2000a). Models of Emotional

Intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Handbook of Intelligence (pp.

396-420). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P. & Caruso, D. R. (2000b). Emotional intelligence as

zeitgeist, as personality and as a mental ability. In R. Bar-On & J. D. A.

Paker (Eds.), The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence: Theory,

Development, Assessment, and Application at Home, School, and in the

workplace (pp. 92-117). San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P. & Caruso, D. (2002). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional

Intelligence Test User's Manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P. & Caruso, D. (2004a). Emotional intelligence: Theory,

findings, and implications. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 197-215.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P. & Caruso, D. (2004b). A further consideration of the

issues of emotional intelligence. Psychological Inquiry, 15(3), 249-255.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R. & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring

emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion, 3(1): 97-105.

McCall, M. & Lombardo, M. (1983). What makes a top executive? Psychology

Today, 17(2), 26-31.

McClelland, D. & Boyatzis, R. (1982). Leadership motive pattern and long-term

success in management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 737-743.

178

McColl-Kennedy, J. R. & Anderson, R. D. (2002). Impact of leadership style and

emotions on subordinate performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 13,

545-559.

McDonald, D. & Smith, A. (1995). A proven connection: Performance

management and business results. Compensation and Benefits Review,

27(1), 59-64.

McDougall, W. (1932). Of the words character and personality. Character and

Personality, 1, 3-16.

McEvoy, G. M. & Beatty, R. W. (1989). Assessment centers and subordinate

appraisals of managers. Personnel Psychology, 42(1), 37.

Mckee, A. L. (2005). Passion, and Power: Ei, Resonance and Renewal. 5th

Annual Emotional Intelligence Conference, Netherlands, 12 - 14 June.

5th Annual Emotional Intelligence Conference. Netherlands.

Miller, D. & Toulouse, J.-M. (1986). Chief Executive Personality and Corporate

Strategy and Structure in Small Firms. Management Science, 32(11),

1389-1409.

Murensky, C. L. (2000). The relationships between emotional intelligence,

personality, critical thinking ability and organizational leadership

performance at upper levels of management. (Doctorial dissertation,

Department of Psychology. Virginia, George Mason University). UMI No.

800-521-0600.

Murphy, K.R. & Davidshofer, C.O. (1988). Psychological Testing. London;

Prentice Hall.

Myers, I.B. McCaulley, M.H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and

use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press, Inc.

179

Myers, I.B. McCaulley, M.H. Quenk, N.L, & Hammer, A.L. (1998). MBTI Manual

(A guide to the development and use of the Myers Briggs type indicator).

Consulting Psychologists Press; 3rd ed edition.

O’Donnel, M. & O’Brien, J. (2000). Performance-based pay in the Australia

Public Service: Employee persepctives. Review of Public Personnel

Administration, 20, 20-27.

Palmer, B. R. (2003). An Analysis of the Relationships Between Various Models

and Measures of Emotional Intelligence. (Doctorial dissertation, Centre

for Neuropsychology, School of Biophysical Sciences and Electrical

Engineering. Victoria, Swinburne University of Technology).

Palmer, B., Donaldson, C. & Stough, C., (2001). Emotional intelligence and life

satisfaction. Personality and individual differences: 1 - 10.

Palmer, B. R., Gardner, L. & Stough, C. (2003). The relationship between

emotional intelligence, personality and effective leadership. 5th

Australian Industrial and Organisational Psychology Conference.

Melbourne.

Palmer, B. R., Gignac, G., Manocha, R. & Stough, C. (in press). A psychometric

evaluation of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence test

version 2.0. Intelligence.

Palmer, B. and Stough, C. (2001), Workplace SUEIT: Swinburne University

Emotional Intelligence Test – Manual, Organizational psychology

Research Unit, Swinburne University, Australia.

Palmer, B., Walls, M., Burgess, Z. & Stough, C. (2000). Emotional intelligence

and effective leadership. Leadership & Organization Development

Journal, 22(1), 5 - 10.

Petrides, K. V. & Furnham, A. (2000). On the dimensional structure of

emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 313-

320.

180

Petrides, K. V. & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric

investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European

Journal of Personality, 15, 425-448.

Petrides, K. V. & Furnham, A. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence: Behavioral

validation in two studies of emotion recognition and reactivity to mood

induction. European Journal of Personality, 17, 39-57.

Pérez, J. C., Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2005). Measuring trait emotional

intelligence. In R. Schulze and R. D. Roberts (Eds.), International

Handbook of Emotional Intelligence. Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe & Huber.

Philips, R. L. & Hunt, J. G. (Eds.). (1992). Strategic leadership: A

multiorganizational-level perspective. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Prati, L. M., Douglas, C., Ferris, G. R., Ammeter, A. P. & Buckley, M. R. (2003).

Emotional intelligence, leadership effectiveness, and team outcomes.

International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(1), 21-40.

Psychological Corporation., T. P., (1999). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of

Intelligence, Manual. The Psychological Corporation.

Raju, N.S., Burke, M.J., & Maurer, T.J. (1995). A note on direct range

restriction corrections in utility analysis. Personnel Psychology, 48, 143-

149.

Rice, C. L. (1999). A quantitative study of emotional intelligence and its impact

on team performance, Pepperdine University.

Riggio, H. R. (2002). Multiple Intelligences and Leadership: An Overview. In R.

E. Riggio, S. E. Murphy & F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple Intelligences and

Leadership. (pp. 241-250). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Roberts, R., Zeidner, M. & Matthews, G. M. (2001). Does emotional intelligence

meet traditional standards for an intelligence? Some new data and

conclusions. Emotion, 1, 196-231.

Rooy, D. L. V. & Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotional intelligence: A meta-analytic

investigation of predictive validity and nomological net. Journal of

181

Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 71-95

Rosental, R. & Rubin, D. B. (1982). A simple, general purpose display of

magnitude of experimental effect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74,

166-169.

Rosete, D. (2004) A leader’s profile – what attributes make an effective leader?

4th International Test Users’ Conference, Melbourne, July 19-20, ACER,

pp. 50-55.

Russell, C.J. Colella, A. & Bobko, P. (1993). Expanding the context of utility:

The strategic impact of personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 46,

781-801.

Salovey, P., Mayer, J., Goldman, S., Turvey, C. & Palfai, T. (1995). Emotional

attention, clarity and repair: Exploring emotional intelligence using the

Trait Meta-Mood Scale. In J. W. Pennebaker (Eds.), Emotion, disclosure,

and health (pp. 125-154). Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Salovey, P. & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional Intelligence. Imagination,

Cognition, & Personality, 9, 185-211.

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(2), 262-274.

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.

Sosik, J. J. & Dworakivsky, A. C. (1998). Self-concept based aspects of the

charismatic leader: More than meets the eye. Leadership Quarterly, 9,

503-526.

Sosik, J. J. & Megerian, L. E. (1999). Understanding leader emotional

intelligence and performamce: The role of self-other agreement on

transformational leadership perceptions. Group & Organization

182

Management, 24(3), 367-390.

Spearman, C. (1904). Geaneral intelligence: Objectively determined and

measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201-293.

Sternberg, R. & Vroom, V. (2002). The person versus the situation in

leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 301-323.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligences.

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1990). Metaphors of Mind: Concepts of the Nature of

Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Smart people are not stupid, but they sure can be

foolish: The imbalance theory of foolishness. In R. J. Sternberg (Eds.),

Why smart people can be so stupid (pp. 232-242). New Haven, USA:

Yale University Press.

Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A review of

the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71.

Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of Leadership. New York: The Free Press.

Terman, L. M. (1916). The Measurement of Intelligence. Boston: Houghton

Mifflin.

Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1992). Recurrent personality factors based on

trait ratings. Journal of Personality, 60, 225–251.

Vance, R. J., MacCallum, R. L., Covert, M. D & Hedge, J. W. (1988). Construct

validity of multiple job performance measures using confirmatory factor

analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(1), 74-80.

Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2002). Agreements and disagreements on the

role of general mental ability (GMA) in industrial, work, and

organizational psychology. Human Performance, 15, 212-231.

183

Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D. S., & Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Comparative analysis of

the reliability of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology,

81(5), 557-574.

Waddell, D. M., Cummings, T. G. & Worley, C. G. (2004). Organisation

Development and Change. Victoria: Thomson.

Wiggins, J.S. (1989). Review of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. In J. C. Conoley

& J. J. Kramer (eds), Tenth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln,

NE: Univer of nebrasks press.

Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. M., (1990). Long-term forecasting of transactional

leadership and its effects among naval officers: Some preliminary

findings. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Ed.), Measures of Leadership (pp.

151-169). Greensboro, North Carolina: Center For Creative Leadership.

Yukl, G., (2006). Leadership in Organizations. New York: Prentice Hall.

Zeidner, M., Mathews, G. & Roberts, R. D. (2001). Slow down, you move too

fast: Emotional intelligence remains an elusive intelligence. Emotion,

1(3), 265 - 275.

Zeidner, M., Matthews, G. & Roberts, R. D. (2004). Emotional intelligence in the

workplace: A critical review. Applied Psychology: An international review,

53(3), 371-399.

184

APPENDIX A - CONSENT FORM

I have been given information about emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness and discussed the research project with David Rosete who is conducting this research as part of a PhD degree, supervised by Dr Joseph Ciarrochi in the department of psychology at the University of Wollongong.

I understand that, if I consent to participate in this project I will be asked to: • Be administered by a psychologist the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of

Intelligence; • Be administered by a psychologist the Swinburne University Emotional

Intelligence Test and/or the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test; and

• Complete the self-administrable Sixteen Personality Factor questionnaire. I also understand that an individual report summarising my findings will be provided with additional feedback and interpretation provided by a psychologist should I request this service. These reports will not be made available to any other individual. I understand that my participation in this research is voluntary, I am free to refuse to participate and I am free to withdraw from the research at any time. My refusal to participate or withdrawal of consent will not affect my relationship with the Australian Taxation Office.

If I have any enquires about the research, I can contact David Rosete (02 42232345) or Joseph Ciarrochi (02 42214884) or if I have any concerns or complaints regarding the way the research is or has been conducted, I can contact the Complaints Officer, Human Research Ethics Committee, University of Wollongong on 02 42214457.

By signing below I am indicating my consent to participate in this research entitled emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness, conducted by David Rosete as it has been described to me. I understand that the data collected from my participation will be used for a thesis manuscript, journal publications and organisational reports highlighting overall trends, and I consent for it to be used in that manner. This information is also made available to individuals should they request this information.

Signed Date / / Name (please print)

185

APPENDIX B – DEMOGRAPHIC FORM

This information is for statistical analysis only. No individual will be identified in any tabulation. Please respond appropriately with either a value or tick in the appropriate box

1. What is your gender? Male.............................................................................................................�1 Female.........................................................................................................�2 2. What is your age range? Less than 20 years ........................................................................................�1 20 years – less than 25 years.........................................................................�2 25 years – less than 35 years.........................................................................�3 35 years – less than 45 years.........................................................................�4 45 years – less than 55 years.........................................................................�5 55 years or older...........................................................................................�6 3. What is you current substantive or long term higher duties (more than

3 months) classification Executive Level 1 ..........................................................................................�1 Executive Level 2.1 .......................................................................................�2

Executive Level 2.2 .......................................................................................�3 SES and their equivalents ..............................................................................�4 4. How long have you been employed by the ATO? Less than 1 year ...........................................................................................�1 1 year – less than 2 years ..............................................................................�2 2 years – less than 5 years ............................................................................�3 5 years – less than 10 years...........................................................................�4

10 years – less than 15 years.........................................................................�5 15 years – less than 20 years.........................................................................�6 20 years or more ..........................................................................................�7 5. What is the highest level of qualification you currently hold. Doctorate or Ph.D .........................................................................................�1 Masters Degree.............................................................................................�2 Postgraduate Diploma or Certificate................................................................�3 Bachelor Degree (including Honours) ..............................................................�4

Associate Diploma or Certificate .....................................................................�5

High School Certificate or equivalent...............................................................�6

School Certificate or equivalent ......................................................................�7

None of the above.........................................................................................�8

186

6. What is your Business or Service Line? Office of the Chief Tax Counsel ......................................................................�1

Large Business & Internationals .....................................................................�2 Other PLEASE SPECIFY _____________________________________ �2 7. Considering your 2003 – 2004 End of Year Performance Appraisal, what

ratings did you receive for both the “what” and “how”? ‘What’ rating score of: ........................................................................... 1 to 5? ‘How’ rating score of: ............................................................................ 1 to 5? 8. For the 2003 – 2004 Multi Source Feedback report, what were your

average direct report ratings against each of the five leadership capabilities?

Exemplifies Personal Drive and Integrity ................................................. 1 to 6? ___ Cultivates Productive Working Relationships ............................................ 1 to 6? ___ Communicates with Influence ................................................................ 1 to 6? ___ Shapes Strategic Thinking...................................................................... 1 to 6? ___ Achieve Results..................................................................................... 1 to 6? ___ How many direct reports responded to your MSF questionnaire?...............

187

APPENDIX C – EXAMPLE OF A PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK REPORT

Please note that the contents of the report are of a fictitious person and a covering e-mail

or letter preceded each report.

188

PERSONALITY PROFILE

Personality instruments typically allow one to investigate human characteristics or traits

that are exhibited across situations, are stable and vary from individual to individual. The

Sixteen Personality Factor (5th Edition) is a comprehensive multi-dimensional measure of

personality based on extensive factor analytic research. The test is widely used in

business and industry for identifying personal qualities that influence work-setting

behaviours.

This report estimates the individual's level on each of the five broad personality

domains of the 16PF5.

A note on terminology. Personality traits describe, relative to other people, the

frequency or intensity of a person's feelings, thoughts, or behaviours. Possession of a trait

is therefore a matter of degree. We might describe two individuals as extraverts, but still

see one as more extraverted than the other.

Please keep in mind that "low," "average," and "high" scores on a personality test

are neither absolutely good nor bad. A particular level on any trait will probably be neutral

or irrelevant for a great many activities, be helpful for accomplishing some things, and

detrimental for accomplishing other things. As with any personality instrument, scores

and descriptions can only approximate an individual's actual personality. High and low

score descriptions are usually accurate, but average scores close to the low or high

boundaries might misclassify you as only average.

The table below provides the results of your five global personality factors. Scores

between 4 and 7 fall within the normal range of behaviour. Scores either above or below

tend to indicate a natural preference to either the right or left meaning of the global

behaviour.

Left Meaning 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 99 1100 Right Meaning

Introverted Extroverted

Low Anxiety High Anxiety

Receptive Tough-Minded

Accommodating Independent

Unrestrained Self-Controlled

189

Extraversion versus Introversion

Extraversion is marked by pronounced engagement with the external world. Extraverts

enjoy being with people, are full of energy, and often experience positive emotions. They

tend to be enthusiastic, action-oriented, individuals who are likely to say "Yes!" or "Let's

go!" to opportunities for excitement. In groups they like to talk, assert themselves, and

draw attention to themselves. Extraverts tend to be people-oriented and to seek out

relationships with others.

Introverts lack the exuberance, energy, and activity levels of extraverts. They tend

to be quiet, low-key, deliberate, and disengaged from the social world. Their lack of social

involvement should not be interpreted as shyness or depression; the introvert simply

needs less stimulation than an extravert and prefers to be alone. The independence and

reserve of the introvert is sometimes mistaken as unfriendliness or arrogance. In reality,

an introvert who scores high on the agreeableness dimension will not seek others out but

will be quite pleasant when approached.

In regards to your unique profile, it is worth noting that you obtain a high score for

Extroversion factor which measures the extent to which a person wants to be with or

around others; the extent of the person’s desire to be noticed and the amount of energy

given to initiating and maintaining social relationship.

Anxiety (Anxious versus Unperturbed)

Freud originally used the term neurosis to describe a condition marked by mental distress,

emotional suffering, and an inability to cope effectively with the normal demands of life.

He suggested that everyone shows some signs of neurosis, but that we differ in our

degree of suffering and our specific symptoms of distress. Today anxiety refers to the

tendency to experience negative feelings. Those who score high on anxiety may

experience several negative feeling such as anger, depression, or anxiety itself. They

respond emotionally to events that would not affect most people, and their reactions tend

to be more intense than normal. They are more likely to interpret ordinary situations as

threatening, and minor frustrations as hopelessly difficult. Their negative emotional

reactions tend to persist for unusually long periods of time, which means they are often in

a bad mood.

190

At the other end of the scale, individuals who score low in anxiety are less easily

upset and are less emotionally reactive. They tend to be calm, emotionally stable, and free

from persistent negative feelings. Freedom from negative feelings does not mean that low

scorers experience a lot of positive feelings; frequency of positive emotions is a

component of the Extraversion domain.

In regards to your unique profile, it is worth noting that you obtain a low score for

Anxiety factor. Low-anxious people tend to be unperturbed; however, they may minimize

negative affect or be unmotivated to change because they are comfortable.

Tough-Mindedness (Tough-Minded versus Receptive)

Tough-Mindedness describes a dimension of cognitive style that distinguishes imaginative,

creative people from down-to-earth, conventional people. Receptive people are

intellectually curious, appreciative of art, and sensitive to beauty. They tend to be,

compared to closed people, more aware of their feelings. They tend to think and act in

individualistic and nonconforming ways.

Another characteristic of the receptive cognitive style is a facility for thinking in

symbols and abstractions far removed from concrete experience. Depending on the

individual's specific intellectual abilities, this symbolic cognition may take the form of

mathematical, logical, or geometric thinking, artistic and metaphorical use of language,

music composition or performance, or one of the many visual or performing arts. People

with high scores on tough-mindedness tend to have narrow, common interests. They

prefer the plain, straightforward, and obvious over the complex, ambiguous, and subtle.

They may regard the arts and sciences with suspicion, regarding these endeavours as

abstruse or of no practical use.

Tough-Mindedness and receptive styles of thinking are useful in different

environments. The intellectual style of the receptive person may serve a professor well,

but research has shown that closed thinking is related to superior job performance in

police work, sales, and a number of service occupations.

191

Independence (Independent versus Accommodating)

Accommodating reflects individual differences in concern with cooperation and social

harmony. Accommodating individuals’ value getting along with others. They are

therefore considerate, friendly, generous, helpful, and willing to compromise their interests

with others. Accommodating people also have an optimistic view of human nature. They

believe people are basically honest, decent, and trustworthy.

Independent individuals place self-interest above getting along with others. They

are generally unconcerned with others well-being, and therefore are unlikely to extend

themselves for other people. Sometimes their scepticism about others motives causes

them to be suspicious, unfriendly, and uncooperative. Independent people tend to enjoy

trying new things and exhibit an intellectual curiosity. A strong element of social

forcefulness is evident in Independence. Independent people tend to form and to express

their own opinion and they often are persuasive and forceful, willing to challenge the

status quo, and suspicious of interference from others.

Accommodating is obviously advantageous for attaining and maintaining popularity.

Accommodating people are better liked than independent people. On the other hand,

accommodating is not useful in situations that require tough or absolute objective

decisions. Independent people can make excellent scientists, critics, or soldiers.

In regards to your unique profile, it is worth noting that you obtain a high score for

Independent factor, indicating someone who has the tendency to be actively and forcefully

self-determined in one’s thinking and actions. Tendencies to be dominant, socially bold,

vigilant and open to change. Independent people tend to enjoy trying new things and

exhibit an intellectual curiosity. Also a strong element of social forcefulness is evident in

Independence. Most notably is that Independent people are often persuasive and

forceful, willing to challenge the status quo, and suspicious of interference from others.

Self-Control (Self-Controlled versus Unrestrained)

Self-Control concerns the way in which we control, regulate, and direct our impulses.

Impulses are not inherently bad; occasionally time constraints require a snap decision, and

acting on our first impulse can be an effective response. Also, in times of play rather than

192

work, acting spontaneously and impulsively can be fun. Unrestrained individuals can be

seen by others as colourful, fun-to-be-with, and zany.

Nonetheless, acting on impulse can lead to trouble in a number of ways. Some

impulses are antisocial. Uncontrolled antisocial acts not only harm other members of

society, but also can result in retribution toward the perpetrator of such impulsive acts.

Another problem with impulsive acts is that they often produce immediate rewards but

undesirable, long-term consequences. Examples include excessive socialising that leads to

being fired from one's job or hurling an insult that causes the break-up of an important

relationship.

Unrestrained behaviour, even when not seriously destructive, diminishes a person's

effectiveness in significant ways. Acting impulsively disallows contemplating alternative

courses of action, some of which would have been wiser than the impulsive choice.

Impulsivity also sidetracks people during projects that require organised sequences of

steps or stages. Accomplishments of an impulsive person are therefore small, scattered,

and inconsistent.

The benefits of high self-control are obvious. Self-control individuals avoid trouble

and achieve high levels of success through purposeful planning and persistence. They are

also positively regarded by others as intelligent and reliable. On the negative side, they

can be compulsive perfectionists and workaholics. Furthermore, extremely self-control

individuals might be regarded as stuffy and boring. Unrestrained people may be criticised

for their unreliability, lack of ambition, and failure to stay within the lines, but they will

experience many short-lived pleasures and they will never be called stuffy.

193

MAYER – SALOVEY - CARUSO EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE TEST

MSCEIT Development Report – Obtain with permission from Dr David R Caruso

(EI Skills Group – www.eiskills.com)

Client: Report Example

MSCEIT Developed By: John D. Mayer, Peter Salovey, David R. Caruso MSCEIT is published by: Multi-Health Systems of Toronto

194

WHAT IS EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE?

Defining Emotional Intelligence

Emotional intelligence is “the ability to perceive emotions, to access and

generate emotions so as to assist thought, to understand emotions and

emotional knowledge, and to reflectively regulate emotions so as to promote

emotional and intellectual growth (Mayer & Salovey, 1997).

This is an ability model of emotional intelligence. John (Jack) Mayer and Peter

Salovey define emotional intelligence as the ability to reason with, and about,

emotions. For them, emotional intelligence combines feelings with thinking,

and thinking with feelings.

This model describes four, related abilities:

Identifying Emotions – the ability to correctly identify how people are feeling.

Using Emotions to Facilitate Thought - the ability to create emotions and to

integrate your feelings into the way you think.

Understanding Emotions - the ability to understand the causes of emotions.

Managing Emotions - the ability to figure out effective strategies that use your

emotions to help you achieve a goal, rather than being used by your emotions.

A Closer Look At the Four Abilities

Identifying Emotions

What Is Perceiving Emotions? Other people, as well as yourself, feel a certain

way. Even the world around you communicates and sends emotional

messages. Emotions contain valuable information about relationships and the

world. This ability starts with being aware of these clues, and then, accurately

identifying what these clues mean.

How is this ability used? You need to be aware of your own feelings and

195

emotions so that you have accurate data and information about the world

around you. Being aware of other's emotions is a key to working with people.

Using Emotions to Facilitate Thought

What Is Using Emotions? How we feel influences how we think. If you are

feeling sad, you may view the world one way, while if you feel happy, you

interpret the same events differently. People in a sad, or negative mood, tend

to focus on details and search for errors. Those in a more positive mood are

better at generating new ideas and novel solutions to problems. Knowing which

moods are best for which situations, and “getting in the right mood” is an

ability.

How is this ability used? Creative ideas can come from your ability to generate

a mood or an emotion. Feeling for other people, having emotional empathy,

may be based in part upon your ability to generate the same feeling that

another person is experiencing.

Understanding Emotions

What Is Understanding Emotions? Emotions contain information, and our

ability to understand this information and think about it plays an important role

in our day to day life. This ability answers questions such as: Why are we

feeling happy; If I say this to my friend, how will he feel; What will happen if I

say that to her?

How is this ability used? Insight into ourselves, and others, may require

emotional knowledge. This knowledge helps us to understand people better.

Managing Emotions

What Is Managing Emotions? If emotions contain information, then ignoring

this information means that we can end up making a poor decision. At times,

we need to stay open to our feelings, learn from these feelings, and use this

information to make decisions and to take appropriate action. At times, though,

it may be best to disengage from an emotion and to return to it later in order to

be effective.

How is this ability used? If you stay aware of your emotions, which contain

196

valuable information, and then use them to solve problems, the outcome may

be more positive.

YOUR OVERALL MSCEIT SCORE

Your MSCEIT scores are reported using the following scale:

Ability / Task

Develop

Consider

Develop-ing

Comp- etent

Skilled

Expert

Develop This Ability

Consider Developing This Ability

A Competent Score

Skilled in this Ability Area

Expertise in this Ability Area

We provide you with a score range in order to help you interpret your test

results. This score range is an estimate of your actual ability.

Develop This Ability: You may have some difficulty in this area. It would be

helpful to enhance your skills and knowledge.

Consider Developing This Ability: While this is not a strength, you can consider

enhancing this skill area if it is important part of your daily life.

A Competent Score: You have sufficient skill to perform in this area with some

degree of success.

Skilled in this Ability Area: This is an area of strength for you.

Expertise in this Ability Area: This may be a highly-developed area of expertise,

and suggests that you have great potential in this area.

197

An overall MSCEIT score is a handy summary of your results. Here is how you

scored on the MSCEIT.

YOUR OVERALL SCORE

Develop

Consider Develop-

ing

Comp- etent

Skilled

Expert

Emotional Intelligence

Your total score was in the Expert range. Your score indicates that you are

aware of emotions in yourself, and in others, and that your perception and

understanding of emotion is extremely accurate. You possess expertise in the

area of emotions.

Remember that all test scores are approximations of your actual

ability. Let’s next take a closer look at your MSCEIT ability scores.

198

MSCEIT ABILITY SCORES FOR Report Example

The most meaningful MSCEIT scores are the four ability scores. Here are your

MSCEIT results for these four scores:

YOUR ABILITY

SCORES

Develop

Consider

Develop-

ing

Comp-

etent

Skilled

Expert

Identifying Emotions

Using Emotions

Understanding Emotions

Managing Emotions

Your score for Identifying Emotions was in the Expert range. You are very

accurate in your read of how people feel, and you should utilize this ability.

Your score for Using Emotions was in the Skilled range. You might want to

find ways to employ this ability to accurately feel what other people feel and to

generate and access emotions to help you think.

Your score for Understanding Emotions was in the Competent range. You

usually are able to understand why people feel the way they feel. You can

describe feelings using emotional vocabulary.

Your score for Managing Emotions was in the Expert range. You are very

open to emotions and utilize the emotions to help you make better decisions.

You can engage emotions, even if they are uncomfortable, and you can

disengage from them when that is the best strategy.

199

Next, we’ll discuss each of your four ability scores in greater depth.

IDENTIFYING EMOTIONS RESULT

YOUR ABILITY

SCORE

Develop

Consider

Develop-

ing

Comp-

etent

Skilled

Expert

Identifying Emotions

You scored in the Expert range. Some possible interpretations of your score

include:

• You read people extremely well.

• Your gut feel for others is right on target.

• You are very open to, and aware of, emotional information.

Another way to help you further understand your results is to review the

following questions:

• Do you pay attention to other’s moods?

• Are you surprised by other’s analysis of the moods of people?

• Do you like to people watch?

• Do you look for emotional clues, such as tone of voice and posture, as

well as facial expressions?

This score indicates that you are good at accurately gauging which emotions

are present in your environment. You have a good emotional read on the

environment around you.

200

That means that you can read other people, and gauge how they are feeling.

Your gut sense as to whether a person is in a good mood or a bad one is right

on target. You can read other’s moods very accurately.

Social interactions can be enhanced by first accurately identifying other’s

emotions. Different actions are called for based upon the answer to emotional

identification questions such as: Is your friend really angry, or is he just

surprised by the news? Is she pleased by her performance, or just glad that it

is over? Use the information you gather about others in your decisions,

thinking, and actions. This is a very important resource that you have available

to you.

More About Identifying Emotions: The ability to accurately recognize

emotions is the most basic emotional intelligence skill. This basic aspect of

emotional intelligence involves recognizing and correctly identifying emotion in

people and the world around you. Identifying emotions is important because

the better the emotional read you have on a situation, the more appropriately

you can respond.

Performance on this ability involves attention to, and awareness of, emotions.

But, simple awareness is not enough: you must also have the ability to discern

between sadness and fear, anger and disgust. Beyond that, the degree to

which fear, anger or happiness is present must be determined.

USING EMOTIONS

YOUR ABILITY

SCORE

Develop

Consider

Develop-

ing

Comp-

etent

Skilled

Expert

Using Emotions

201

You scored in the Skilled range. Some possible interpretations of your score

include:

• You have accurate emotional empathy, and can feel what other people

feel.

• You are flexible or open-minded, and switch points of view and feelings.

• Your leadership style has the potential to energize, and to motivate

others.

One way to help you further understand your results is to review the following

questions:

• Do you easily change your feelings?

• Are you able to feel what the other person was feeling? (Not

understand them or their feelings, but to get into the same mood as

them?)

• Do you psych yourself up?

• Do you bring yourself down?

• Do you excite a group of people?

• Do you get into other people's head and heart?

• Do you grab people's attention?

• Does your thinking reflect your feelings?

You may be able to encourage open-minded decision making, planning and

idea generation by considering multiple points of view. You can generate

enthusiasm for a project, and energize, direct and motivate the group, and

yourself.

202

More About Using Emotions (to Facilitate Thought)

Your Using Emotions score is the ability which allows you to employ your

feelings to enhance the cognitive system (thinking) and, as such, can be

harnessed for more effective problem-solving, reasoning, decision-making, and

creative endeavors. Of course, cognition can be disrupted by emotions, such as

anxiety and fear, but emotions also can prioritize the cognitive system to attend

to what is important and even focus on what it does best in a given mood.

Emotions also change the way we think, creating positive thoughts when a

person is happy, and negative when the person is sad. These changes in

viewpoint force us to view things from different perspectives. Such shifting

viewpoints may foster creative thinking.

UNDERSTANDING EMOTIONS

YOUR ABILITY

SCORE

Develop

Consider

Develop-

ing

Comp-

etent

Skilled

Expert

Understanding Emotions

You scored in the Competent range. Some possible interpretations of your

score include:

• You have a reasonably good emotional vocabulary.

• You have some knowledge of complex emotions.

• You can be emotionally aware and insightful.

One way to help you further understand your results is to review the following

questions:

203

• Do you correctly answer emotional what-if questions?

• Are your analyses of people usually on-target?

• Do you employ your emotional knowledge to help you figure people

out?

• Do you describe emotions in a rich manner?

• Are you a good judge of others?

Your score on Understanding Emotion suggests that you have a good

understanding of emotional transitions. You can also describe emotions and

the difference between them. There are certainly emotions that you struggle to

understand, or to describe. You might want to attend more carefully to subtle

differences between similar emotion words.

More About Understanding Emotion

Understanding emotions means being able to think accurately about emotions.

It involves being able to connect situations with certain emotions. It also

involves knowing that it is possible to feel several, possibly conflicting feelings

in certain situations. Understanding what leads to various emotions is a

critical component of emotional intelligence. For instance, annoyance and

irritation can lead to rage if the cause of the irritation continues and intensifies.

Knowledge of how emotions combine and change over time is important in our

dealings with other people and in enhancing our self understanding.

204

MANAGING WITH EMOTIONS

YOUR ABILITY

SCORE

Develop

Consider

Develop-

ing

Comp-

etent

Skilled

Expert

Managing Emotions

You scored in the Expert range. Some possible interpretations of your score

include:

• You can make optimal decisions because you stay open to emotions.

• Your decisions include thinking and feeling.

• You may have a long-term focus on problem solving.

One way to help you further understand your results is to review the following

questions:

• Do you go with your gut?

• Do you use your feelings as a guide?

• Are you good at influencing others?

• Do your decisions end well?

• Do you provide sound, psychologically-minded advice to others?

Your score in this area means that you are very good at resolving conflict and

that you can handle emotions, rather than be scared by them. You have an

important technical skill that you can apply to working and relating to others,

and managing your own emotions to enhance the quality of your life.

This ability may mean that at times your perspective is different from others.

You realize the informational value of emotion, and this can make the process

205

of decision making more complex and more difficult, even though the decisions

themselves are probably right on target.

More About Managing With Emotion

Managing with emotions means you feel your feelings, and then use them in a

judicious way, rather than acting on them without thinking.

For instance, anger, like many emotions, is a misunderstood emotion. Anger is

not necessarily a bad thing to feel. In fact, it is anger which helps us to

overcome adversity, bias and injustice. Anger arises when we feel frustrated,

cheated or taken advantage of. Yet, anger, if left to itself, can blind us and

cause us to act in negative, or antisocial ways.

Managing With Emotions measures your ability to feel the emotion, no matter

what the emotion may be, but to then combine thinking with this emotion in

order to make the best possible decisions and take the most effective actions.

This ability works with the emotion of anger, but also with all other emotions.

206

How To Use Your MSCEIT Results

Emotional intelligence can be defined and measured as an intelligence, or as a

set of abilities. The MSCEIT provides you with an estimate of these emotional

skills. Tests like the MSCEIT are designed to help people learn more about

themselves and to better understand their strengths.

Remember that emotional intelligence is just one part of who you are, and that

there are many other parts of your personality that are perhaps just as

important, or more important, than emotional intelligence.

Leverage Your Emotional Abilities - We hope that we made it clear that the

MSCEIT is an ability test, and that it measures your emotional skill or ability.

Your results indicate that you have a high level of such skill.

You might be aware of this ability, or you might not. But either way, look for

situations in which you have had an accurate insight into people or complex

interactions. Think of times when your read of a situation was right on target.

Find ways to leverage this emotional ability.

Leverage Your Emotional Vision - You have 20/20 vision when it comes to

accurately identifying emotions. Remember that this is not the same as

emotional awareness - we're talking about being aware but also being correct.

The information that you can gain from your interactions with other people is of

great value and you should generally trust your emotional 'read' of others.

Leverage Your Ability To Feel Emotions - Emotions direct our attention

toward important events. Emotions also help us to think, decide, plan and act.

This is one of your strengths, and you should look for ways to make use of your

emotional ability. Is there a way that you can leverage your skill to help you

with idea generation, creative pursuits, or to utilize your emotional insight?

Your empathy for people, to feel what others feel, offers you a unique look into

what makes people, and yourself, tick. Of course you don’t always have to

207

apply this ability, but you should be aware of this emotional potential and use it

wisely and to better assist you.

Leverage Your Emotional Knowledge - It looks like you can manage with

emotions effectively. As long as your emotional data source is accurate, then

you should certainly go with your decisions as you are able to integrate

emotions and thinking in a very constructive manner.

208

APPENDIX D

APPLYING UTILITY ANALYSIS TO AN ABILITY-BASED MEASURE OF

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELECTION

Utility analysis provides a method to evaluate how well a particular

psychological test performs when used to make decisions. It is particularly

used in the area of personnel selection and recruitment (De-Corte, 1996;

Murphy and Davidshofer, 1988; Russell, Colella and Bobko, 1993).

Specifically, utility theory provides a method for estimating in dollar

terms the gross gain per year in productivity that would result if a valid test is

used during the personnel selection process (Murphy and Davidshofer, 1988).

The principal equation is aimed at comparing the dollar production of those

hired by a particular psychological test with the dollar production of the same

number of workers hired randomly. The difference is known as the (marginal)

utility of the selection process (Hunter and Hunter, 1984). The formula for

Total Utility (ie, gain in productivity) is estimated by:

U = N T rxy SDy Zxs (Hunter and Hunter, 1984) where,

N = number of persons to be hired

T = average term for those hired

rxy = correlation between predictor scores and job performance

SDy = standard deviation of the criterion in dollar terms

Zxs = the standard score on the test

209

Murphy and Davidshofer (1988) suggest that several factors will affect the

overall quality of decisions made using utility analysis. Firstly, the validity of the

test (rxy), low validity can sometimes have higher utility than tests of high

validity. Secondly, the standard deviation of the criterion (SDy), that is, the

larger the standard deviation the lower the potential gain associated with the

use of the psychological tests. The reason for this is that a large standard

deviation indicates substantial differences in criterion scores. While a small

standard deviation indicates that everyone performs at a similar level.

Therefore, if individuals’ difference in performance is large, the quality of the

selection decisions will make a great deal of difference. Finally, the average

test among those selected (Zxs) will also affect utility.

For these studies we obtain the following values.

N = 1 (example of a recent selection campaign)

T = 1 year

rxy = .50 (highest correlation between EI and job performance obtained)

SDy = A$ 52,000 (based on the notion that those rated as superior are in fact

performing 40% more efficiently. Average salary package being A$

130,000)

Zxs = 12.82 (Taken directly from the results obtain on the MSCEIT)

Returning to our utility analysis, U = N T rxy SDy Zxs (Hunter and Hunter,

1984), U = 12 *1 * .50 * $52,000 * 12.82 = A$ 3,999,840.

210

Thus, the productivity gain for one year due to hiring on the basis of the

EI measure rather then at random is 4 million Australian dollars. In reality, we

would not select potential candidates at random but would use a combination

of methods and clearly the results of these studies show that the ability-base EI

would add significant value in a selection process within this environment.

Also, our results show that the average tenure is 15 years, this will in effect

increase the overall magnitude of the potential savings one could make by

implementing an ability-EI measure into the selection of senior executives.