24
Emotional Intelligence and Individual Performance: Evidence of Direct and Moderated Effects Author(s): Joseph C. Rode, Christine H. Mooney, Marne L. Arthaud-Day, Janet P. Near, Timothy T. Baldwin, Robert S. Rubin and William H. Bommer Source: Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28, No. 4 (May, 2007), pp. 399-421 Published by: Wiley Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30162566 . Accessed: 12/07/2014 08:22 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. . Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Organizational Behavior. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 81.245.208.184 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 08:22:13 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Emotional Intelligence and Individual Performance: Evidence of Direct and Moderated Effects

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Emotional Intelligence and Individual Performance: Evidence of Direct and Moderated Effects

Emotional Intelligence and Individual Performance: Evidence of Direct and Moderated EffectsAuthor(s): Joseph C. Rode, Christine H. Mooney, Marne L. Arthaud-Day, Janet P. Near,Timothy T. Baldwin, Robert S. Rubin and William H. BommerSource: Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28, No. 4 (May, 2007), pp. 399-421Published by: WileyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30162566 .

Accessed: 12/07/2014 08:22

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of OrganizationalBehavior.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 81.245.208.184 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 08:22:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 2: Emotional Intelligence and Individual Performance: Evidence of Direct and Moderated Effects

Journal of Organizational Behavior J. Organiz. Behay. 28, 399-421 (2007) Published online 13 December 2006 in Wiley InterScience

(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/j ob.429

*WILEY InterScience(R) DISCOVER SOMETHING GREAT

Emotional intelligence and individual performance: evidence of direct and moderated effects

JOSEPH C. RODE1*, CHRISTINE H. MOONEY2, MARNE L. ARTHAUD-DAY3, JANET P. NEAR, TIMOTHY T. BALDWIN2, ROBERT S. RUBIN4 AND WILLIAM H. BOMMER5 'Miami University of Ohio, Laws Hall, Oxford, OH, U.S.A. 2lndiana University, 1309 East 10th Street, Bloomington, IN, U.S.A. 3Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, U.S.A. 4DePaul University, 1 E. Jackson, Chicago, IL, U.S.A. 5Cleveland State University, 2121 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, U.S.A.

Summary We examined the direct and moderated effects of an ability-based measure of emotional intelligence (MSCEIT(c) V2.0) on individual performance in a sample of business under- graduates. Controlling for general mental ability and personality, emotional intelligence explained unique incremental variance in performance ratings on only one of two measures of interpersonal effectiveness (public speaking effectiveness). However, the interaction of emotional intelligence with conscientiousness explained unique incremental variance both in public speaking and group behavior effectiveness, as well as academic performance (cumu- lative GPA). We conclude that the effects of emotional intelligence on performance are more indirect than direct in nature. Individuals must not only have emotional intelligence, but also must be motivated to use it. Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction

Several theorists have proposed that emotional intelligence (EI) predicts individual performance in a variety of contexts, beyond the effects of established predictors such as general mental ability and personality (e.g., Bar-On, 2000; Goleman, 1995; Law, Wong, & Song, 2004). Empirical analyses of the relationship between EI and performance, however, have produced conflicting results. Close examination of the existing EI research reveals at least four factors that may be limiting our ability to draw meaningful conclusions from the data generated thus far. The first two factors are methodological in nature, while the second two address the potential presence of boundary conditions on the EI-performance relationship.

To begin with, the measurement of EI varies widely across studies. For example, Brackett, Mayer, and Warner (2004), Barchard (2003), and O'Connor and Little (2003) followed the 'mental abilities'

* Correspondence to: Joseph C. Rode, Miami University of Ohio, Laws Hall, Oxford, OH 45056-3628, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]

Received 21 February 2005 Revised 9 March 2006

Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 21 September 2006

This content downloaded from 81.245.208.184 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 08:22:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 3: Emotional Intelligence and Individual Performance: Evidence of Direct and Moderated Effects

400 J. C. RODE ET AL.

model of EI (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000; Mayer & Salovey, 1993, 1997) and used corresponding problem-based measures of the construct. Conversely, other have followed broader 'mixed' or 'trait' models of EI, utilizing various self-report measures. This is notable, given research indicating that

self-report and performance-based measures of EI share a relatively small amount of variance (r = 0.15 to 0.31; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2004), leading several authors to conclude that they tap into different constructs. Indeed, several popular self-report measures of EI have been criticized for lacking discriminant validity from measures of personality (Davies, Stankov, & Roberts, 1998; MacCann, Roberts, Matthews, & Zeidner, 2003).

Moreover, results from previous studies appear to vary depending on the control variables included in the research models. In the academic arena, for example, some researchers have found EI to be correlated with individual performance (GPA; Brackett et al., 2004; Petrides, Frederickson, & Furnham, 2004; Van Der Zee, Thijs, & Schakel, 2002), while others have found that the relationship lost significance after controlling for general mental ability and

personality (Barchard, 2003; Newsome, Day, & Catano, 2000). Similarly, at least two studies have found a significant relationship between EI and job performance (Bar-On, 2000; Law, Wong, &

Song, 2004), but only one controlled for personality and neither took general mental ability into account. These differences in study design are notable given that both personality and general mental ability have strong, established relationships with individual performance (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999; Ree & Earles, 1992; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998).

Empirical inconsistencies may also be accounted for by inadequate consideration of potential boundary conditions surrounding the relationship between EI and performance. Interestingly, researchers have not carefully delineated and compared the various types of individual performance that are likely to be related to EI, even though performance is known to be a multidimensional construct. EI may be especially pertinent whenever performance requires a high degree of interpersonal interaction. Preliminary research concerning the relationship between EI and group processes (Jordan & Troth, 2004) and quality of social interactions (Lopes et al., 2004) supports this notion.

Finally, additional boundary conditions may exist with respect to individual differences that moderate the effects of EI on performance. The omission of such potential moderating variables from prior models may have provided an inaccurate account of the true relationship. O'Reilly and Chatman (1994), for example, found that achievement motivation moderated the relationship between general mental ability and performance, while Witt and Ferris (2003) found a similar effect with respect to the relationship between social skills and performance. If we

accept the premise that EI is an alternate form of ability (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999; Mayer &

Salovey, 1993), then it is reasonable to hypothesize that it may interact with motivation in a similar fashion.

Thus, our study contributes to the EI-performance literature in four significant ways. First, we utilize a recently developed, behavioral measure of EI, the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT(c) V2.0; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002), which research indicates to be a more reliable and valid instrument than those used previously (Brackett & Mayer, 2003; O'Connor & Little, 2003). Second, we control for both personality and general mental ability, two variables with well-established relationships to various measures of individual performance. Third, we test the

relationship between EI and two different types of performance (interpersonal effectiveness and academic performance), utilizing the same sample. This is important because these performance measures involve different levels of interpersonal communication and because it permits a direct

comparison of results across performance settings. Lastly, we examine the moderating effect of motivation, as measured by conscientiousness, to determine the presence of a potentially important boundary condition based on individual differences.

Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behay. 28, 399-421 (2007) DOI: 10.1002/job

This content downloaded from 81.245.208.184 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 08:22:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 4: Emotional Intelligence and Individual Performance: Evidence of Direct and Moderated Effects

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE 401

Hypotheses

The 'mental abilities' conceptualization of EI (Mayer et al., 2000; Mayer & Salovey, 1993, 1997) proposes that EI represents the intersection of general mental ability and emotions. Put another way, EI indicates the extent to which cognitive capabilities and processes are informed by emotions and the extent to which emotions are cognitively managed. Thus, while the type of information (emotional vs. verbal, symbolic, or mathematical) considered by EI and general mental ability differ, they are related to the extent that they employ similar information-processing strategies.

The mental abilities model specifies four EI dimensions: Perceiving Emotions, or the ability to

identify emotions in the self and others; Facilitating Thought, or the ability to use information that

explains felt emotions in order to prioritize and direct thinking; Understanding Emotions, or the ability to understand the relationships among emotions, and how emotions transition from one state to another; and Managing Emotions, or the ability to manage emotions in oneself and others (Mayer et al., 1999). Additionally, it should be noted that utilizing EI, like general mental ability, is not a passive process. The theory implies that the abilities included in EI require cognitive effort for their effects to be realized (Mayer et al., 2004).

EI and interpersonal effectiveness

Although many models of interpersonal effectiveness have been proposed, most support the notion that the construct consists of two general components: (1) the effective communication of ideas and opinions; and (2) the ability to facilitate productive interactions among two or more individuals (DeVito, 2004; Knapp, Miller, & Fudge, 1993). While interpersonal interaction can involve various communication mediums and timeframes, we focus on oral communication and real-time interactions because of their conceptual relevance to EI.

EI should be related to the effective communication of ideas and opinions for at least two reasons. First, an integral part of the Understanding Emotions dimension is the ability to understand how environmental influences (e.g., message content, verbal, and nonverbal cues) facilitate the transition from one emotional state to another (Salovey, Mayer, & Caruso, 2002). This, combined with the ability to manage one's own emotional state (Managing Emotions), should enable one to display appropriate passion (and restraint) when speaking, a key characteristic of effective oral communication (Walker, 2005). Second, EI is thought to be related to individual adaptive coping behaviors (Jordan, Ashkanasy, & Hartel, 2002), which, in turn, may influence communication effectiveness. The cognitive resource allocation model (Ellis & Ashbrook, 1988) proposes that high levels of felt emotions can significantly reduce the cognitive capacity available to deal with the task at hand. For example, research shows that high levels of the negative emotions that accompany stress (e.g., anxiety, fear; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) are associated with decreased focus, poor decision-making, and ineffective communication (Ellis & Ashbrook, 1988; Guerrero, Andersen, & Trost, 1998). In contrast, moderate amounts of stress are associated with increased attention focus (Jex, 1998). One of the defining abilities of the Managing Emotions dimension is the capacity to connect or disconnect from an emotion depending on its usefulness in any given situation (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). Thus, EI should facilitate detachment from extreme felt stress and its associated emotional states, to enable one to better focus on the task at hand. This aspect of EI may be particularly relevant to oral communication in formal or group settings, given that public speaking and the expression of personal opinions in group settings are considered highly stressful activities for many individuals (Daly & McCroskey, 1984).

Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behay. 28, 399-421 (2007) DOI: 10.1002/job

This content downloaded from 81.245.208.184 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 08:22:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 5: Emotional Intelligence and Individual Performance: Evidence of Direct and Moderated Effects

402 J. C. RODE ET AL.

Similarly, EI should be related to effective interactions among individuals because it helps individuals monitor their own and others' behaviors (Feyerherm & Rice, 2002). In their now classic taxonomy, Benne and Sheats (1948) identified two general types of individual behaviors, task oriented and relationship oriented, associated with effective interpersonal interactions in small groups. Task-oriented behaviors are designed to facilitate or coordinate decision-making, while relation- ship-oriented behaviors are designed to strengthen interpersonal relationships. Close examination reveals that the majority of the behaviors included in this taxonomy could also be classified as behaviors associated with active listening, or behaviors designed to ensure that a communication is accurately understood and is valued (O'Rourke, 2004). For example, task-oriented behaviors include information seeking (i.e., asking questions and seeking relevant data or views from team mates) and summarizing (i.e., reviewing others' viewpoints and checking for common understanding). Relationship-oriented behaviors include encouraging (i.e., supporting and praising others' ideas) and gate keeping (assuring even participation by all group members).

Active listening behaviors assure the sender that their message has been accurately understood as well as signal that the sender's opinions are valued and taken seriously. As a result, they lessen the sender's feelings of frustration and anxiety (Andersen & Guerrero, 1998). To the extent that EI includes the ability to perceive others' emotions (Perceiving Emotions), to understand how emotions transition from one state to another (Understanding Emotions), as well to manage others' emotions (Managing Emotions), we would expect that EI would lead to the demonstration of behaviors associated with mitigating feelings of frustration and anxiety in others (i.e., active listening), and, by extension, effective interpersonal interactions. Additionally, EI may facilitate task-oriented behaviors such as information seeking because a key component of the Facilitating Thought dimension is the ability to assess a problem from multiple perspectives (Mayer & Salovey, 1997), which may predispose one to be more open to considering, or even soliciting, others' viewpoints.

Although our theoretical arguments focus on two general components of interpersonal effectiveness, we propose a single hypothesis because in most cases the two components will exist simultaneously and will exert mutual influences on one another. Correspondingly, at least one of our measures of interpersonal effectiveness (see Methods section for detailed description) encompassed both effective communication and the facilitation of interpersonal interaction.

Hypothesis 1: Emotional intelligence is positively related to interpersonal effectiveness.

EI and academic performance

We expected EI to be related to academic performance for two primary reasons. First, academic work includes a great deal of ambiguity and uncertainty (Actin, 1993), characteristics that are associated with felt stress (Jex, 1998). Students must manage multiple assignments, adapt to differing instructor expectations, work independently toward goals, and prioritize conflicting academic and non-academic demands. Further, some aspects of academic work may be considered acutely stressful (e.g., taking exams). Following the mechanisms outlined previously, the capacity to connect or disconnect from an emotion as needed in times of stress (i.e., Managing Emotions) may therefore be related to higher levels of academic performance on an ongoing basis as well as in acute situations.

Second, academic endeavors are largely self-directed and require high levels of self-management. An integral part of the Facilitating Thought dimension is an understanding of the causes and consequences of emotions. Mayer and Salovey (1997) argue that this aspect of EI allows one to both direct positive emotions to maintain the energy required for high performance over longer periods of time and to redirect negative emotions into productive behaviors designed to overcome the source of the negative emotion. Conversely, the inability to adequately understand emotional meanings and the

Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behay. 28, 399-421 (2007) DOI: 10.1002/job

This content downloaded from 81.245.208.184 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 08:22:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 6: Emotional Intelligence and Individual Performance: Evidence of Direct and Moderated Effects

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE 403

relationships between various emotional states is associated with coping strategies designed to deny or avoid emotional reactions, such as withdrawal and avoidance (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Mobley, Griffith, Hand, & Meglino, 1979). Such dysfunctional coping mechanisms have obvious negative implications for self-directed pursuits such as academic work.

Hypothesis 2: Emotional intelligence is positively related to academic performance.

Interaction effects of El and motivation

Early models of work performance (e.g., Heider, 1958; Maier, 1958) proposed that motivation moderated the relationship between ability and job performance [i.e., p =f (M x A)]. Researchers in this tradition argued that a person of high ability who is unmotivated would find creative ways to be lazy and thus not perform well. Similarly, a highly motivated person of low ability would actually make more mistakes and perform worse than an unmotivated person of low ability. More recently, several authors have suggested that personality dimensions can be used as proxies of endogenous, or trait motivation (e.g., Pinder, 1984; Wright, Kacmar, McMahan, & Deleeuw, 1995).

One commonly used proxy for trait motivation is conscientiousness (e.g., Goldberg, 1993; Judge & Ilies, 2002; Sackett, Gruys, & Ellingson, 1998; Schmidt & Hunter, 1992; Witt, Burke, Murray, & Mount, 2002; Witt & Ferris, 2003), which has been examined as a potential moderator of the relationship between ability and performance (e.g., Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001; Hollenbeck, Brief, Whitener, & Pauli, 1988; O'Reilly & Chatman, 1994), based on the presumed ability-motivation interaction. Several researchers have noted that 'dutiful achievement' is an integral component of conscientiousness (Mount & Barrick, 1995; Moon, 2001), a premise that has received considerable empirical support (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991). Other theorists have viewed conscientiousness primarily in terms of will to achieve, or 'achievement striving' (Digman & Inouye, 1986; Trapnell & Wiggins, 1990). More specifically, Mount, Barrick, and Strauss (1999: p. 710) posited that `conscientiousness influences job performance, in part, through its relationship to motivational state mechanisms, such as goal setting and commitment to goals.' Based on these arguments, conscientiousness may be considered a reasonable proxy measure of internally derived motivation with respect to our criterion measures, each of which provided specific objective performance feedback that lends itself to goal setting and goal striving behavior.

We expected the relationship between EI and interpersonal effectiveness to be stronger when conscientiousness was high rather than low. To illustrate, consider individuals with high EI but low conscientiousness. Compared to those high in both EI and conscientiousness, these individuals may simply lack the motivation to put forth the cognitive effort required to utilize their EI abilities. For example, although they know better, these individuals may make personal attacks when frustrated because they lack the motivation to detach from their emotional state and reframe their messages more constructively.

Likewise, individuals with low EI but high conscientiousness may be more likely to engage in unproductive interpersonal behaviors compared to individuals low in both EI and conscientiousness. For example, the desire to do well combined with the inability to understand emotional meanings, or to manage emotional states, may result in damaging interpersonal influence strategies based on manipulative use of negative emotions such as anger and fear. Similarly, the desire for high achievement may amplify the stress and anxiety associated with oral communication in formal or group settings, which in the absence of EI, may result in decreased focus and ineffective behaviors (e.g., distracting nonverbals, avoidance of eye contact, talking too fast, etc.). Conversely, one low in both EI and conscientiousness may be less likely to engage in unproductive interpersonal behaviors or experience increased stress levels because they are not as motivated to achieve high performance. Overall, then, we expected the effects of both low and high EI to be stronger when conscientiousness was high.

Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behay. 28, 399-421 (2007) DOI: 10.1002/job

This content downloaded from 81.245.208.184 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 08:22:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 7: Emotional Intelligence and Individual Performance: Evidence of Direct and Moderated Effects

404 J. C. RODE ET AL.

Hypothesis 3: Conscientiousness positively moderates the relationship between emotional intelligence and interpersonal effectiveness, such that the relationship between emotional intelligence and

interpersonal effectiveness is stronger for high versus low levels of conscientiousness.

We expected EI to display a similar interaction pattern with conscientiousness with respect to academic performance. Following the previous arguments, individuals with high EI but low conscientiousness may simply lack the achievement motivation to utilize their EI abilities to the

greatest possible extent. This could be either to the task at hand (i.e., managing one's emotional state to facilitate productive studying or active engagement in class discussions), or to strategies associated with long-term performance (i.e., developing strategies to overcome sources of chronic stress). Conversely, those with high EI and high conscientiousness will be more likely to utilize their strong EI abilities because they are motivated to do so.

On the other hand, individuals with low EI but high conscientiousness may utilize counterproductive coping strategies that ultimately decrease academic performance. Their high conscientiousness may lead to high levels of negative emotions such as anxiety and fear because the uncertainties inherent in academic work are viewed as a threat to their valued achievement goals (Locke, 1976, 1991). Unfortunately, their lack of EI prevents them from effectively managing these uncomfortable and distractive emotions, which may lead to decreased task focus, or even withdrawal or avoidance behaviors (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Mobley et al., 1979). Conversely, individuals with low EI and low conscientiousness may not experience such strong emotional reactions when faced with the

uncertainty and challenges of academic work because they are comfortable with lower levels of achievement and will therefore be less likely to engage in such counterproductive behaviors.

Hypothesis 4: Conscientiousness positively moderates the relationship between emotional

intelligence and academic performance, such that the relationship between emotional intelligence and academic performance is stronger for high versus low levels of conscientiousness.

Organizational Context

Our study was conducted in the Spring of 2002 within the Business school at a large, residential Midwestern state-supported university with a traditional student body. Students enrolled in a

required organizational behavior course received credit for participation in the study. Participation was voluntary and students could earn equivalent credit through participation in other activities. A

majority of subjects (N = 378) were male (54%), U.S. citizens of European descent (90%), and

juniors in college (72%), with a mean age of 20.7 years. Respondents answered five on-line questionnaires, one per week, consisting of a variety of

subjective well-being, EI, and personality items. General mental ability data were collected at the start of a 3-hour assessment center exercise that occurred 1-3 weeks after completion of the on-line

questionnaires and about a month into the new semester. The interpersonal effectiveness measures were collected as part of the assessment center exercise. Participation in the assessment center was a

requirement for all students enrolled in the course (including those who did not participate in the

study). Class time was spent preparing students for the assessment center, and resulting performance scores were used in final course grade calculations.

Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behay. 28, 399-421 (2007) DOI: 10.1002/job

This content downloaded from 81.245.208.184 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 08:22:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 8: Emotional Intelligence and Individual Performance: Evidence of Direct and Moderated Effects

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE 405

Method

Measures

Interpersonal effectiveness As part of the assessment center, participants attended two leaderless group discussion meetings (lasting 20 minutes each) and delivered a 3-minute impromptu speech. The extent to which participants demonstrated specific individual behaviors (described below) within each type of exercise was used to measure interpersonal effectiveness; we refer to these measures as 'group behavior effectiveness' and `public speaking effectiveness,' respectively. Participants were given a background packet to review a week prior to the simulation. We provided additional information regarding the nature of the leaderless group discussions (one analyzing the merits of a proposed customer service initiative and one making a

hiring recommendation for an open management position) and the content of the speech (arguing for the merits of expanding into a new market) during the simulation as part of an in-basket exercise. To reduce method bias, we varied the sequencing of the group discussions and speech exercises for each student.

We videotaped the group discussions and the speech, and trained industrial/organizational psychology graduate students rated performance across discretely described behavior dimensions. Raters were trained in a 2-day workshop with a frame of reference design (Bernardin & Buckley, 1981) and videotaped examples. Pairs of raters reached consensus on a behavioral checklist (Reilly, Henry, & Smither, 1990) that precisely defined the rating criteria, by level, for each behavior. A copy of the behavioral categories included in each checklist is included in the Appendix.

Our raters scored group behavior effectiveness on three broad categories of individual behavior: communication delivery (five behaviors), decision-making, or the extent to which the participants' communications contained well-reasoned arguments with respect to the business issue at hand (six and four behaviors, for the customer service and selection meetings, respectively), and teamwork, or the extent to which the participant displayed behaviors associated with the promotion of effective group functioning (nine behaviors). Thus, this measure focused on the extent to which the participants effectively communicated their thoughts and opinions within the context of live, ongoing interactions, as well as the extent to which the participants engaged in individual behaviors that facilitated effective group interactions. We averaged the standardized total scores from the two group discussion exercises (a = 0.69) to create an overall score.

Our raters scored public speaking effectiveness in terms of three behavior categories: communication delivery (seven behaviors), decision-making, or the extent to which the speech contained relevant, well-reasoned arguments (five behaviors), and overall planning and organizing of the speech content (six behaviors). Thus, this measure focused on one's ability to organize and deliver effective formal oral communication in the presence of competing demands (i.e., the other tasks included in the in-basket exercise) and tight time pressures. We standardized the aggregate score to maintain a consistent metric with the group discussion ratings.

Academic performance We used self-reported overall college GPA to measure academic performance. Since most students were juniors majoring in Business, this data point represented academic performance over a lengthy time frame (four to five semesters) that included assessments based on both individual and team assignments. To assess the reliability of this measure, we compared the self-report GPA scores against university records for a random subsample of 100 respondents. The two sources were highly correlated (r = 0.93,p < 0.01) with an average difference of less than 0.04, indicating that self-reported GPA was a reliable indicator.

Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behay. 28, 399-421 (2007) DOI: 10.1002/job

This content downloaded from 81.245.208.184 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 08:22:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 9: Emotional Intelligence and Individual Performance: Evidence of Direct and Moderated Effects

406 J. C. RODE ET AL.

Emotional intelligence The MSCEIT(c) V2.0 consisted of 141 items divided into eight sections, or tasks. Two sections required the respondent to indicate the degree to which several emotions were present in either a series of color photographs representing faces (faces task) or pictures of other objects such as landscapes or abstract

pieces of art (pictures task), rated on a five-point Likert scale. A third section required the respondent to select the relative effectiveness of various emotions in facilitating certain behaviors in hypothetical situations (facilitation task), based upon a series of five multiple-choice answers. Four other sections

provided scenarios in which respondents were asked to: (1) compare the emotion being felt by a character in a scenario to colors, temperature, and lighting characteristics (sensations task); (2) identify possible emotional reactions, given a character's emotional state (changes task); (3) evaluate the effectiveness of a character's response with respect to managing specific emotions (emotional management task); and (4) rate the usefulness of several actions, given specific interpersonal relationship objectives (emotional relations task). Finally, the blends task required the respondents to identify the basic components of complex emotions or to identify the complex emotion formed when

simple emotions were aggregated. The MSCEIT(c) V2.0 took approximately 30 minutes to complete and was administered via a

web-based questionnaire that participants completed at their convenience during a specific time period prior to the date of the assessment center exercise. A statistical firm affiliated with the test publisher, Multi-Health Systems, utilized a general consensus method to calculate item and task scores. Item scores were assigned based on the percentage of respondents in the normative sample (N = 5000, weighted to mirror the demographic characteristics within the United States) who selected the same answer as the respondent. As a result, item scores ranged from 0 to 1.0. Task scores were calculated as the mean of the item scores within the task and then rescaled as a deviation from the mean of the normative sample, which was scaled with a mean of 100. Task scores obtained using the general consensus method have been found to correlate with scores provided by a panel of 21 experts rating emotional meaning of stimuli (r = 0.69 to 0.98; Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2003), indicating the validity of the general consensus scoring method. Mayer et al. (2000) also reported correlations of 0.70 or greater between expert and consensus scoring methods on scenario-based tasks similar to those utilized in the MSCEIT(c) V2.0. The advantages and disadvantages of the consensus scoring method have been examined in detail elsewhere (e.g., MacCann et al., 2003). As recommended by Mayer et al. (2000), we averaged the eight task scores (a = 0.81) to create one overall measure of EI. The data supported the usage of one overall measure of EI, as indicated by the results of factor analysis (described below), as well as the fact that the four branch scores displayed high levels of intercorrelation (r = 0.62 to .90, after adjusting for attenuation due to scale unreliabilities).

Conscientiousness We measured conscientiousness using five items (a = 0.80) from Goldberg's (1999) Big Five inventory. Sample items included 'Pay attention to details' and 'Get chores done right away' . Respondents were asked to rate how well the behavioral statements described them, using a Likert scale, ranging from

`very inaccurate' (1) to 'very accurate' (5). The Goldberg items have been validated against the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1985).

Control variables We measured general mental ability with the Wonderlic Personnel Test (WPT, 2000), a 12-minute timed test consisting of 50 items, scored as the number of correct responses. It is correlated

(range = 0.85 to 0.93) with the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale full scale (Dodrill, 1981; Dodrill & Warner, 1988) and has shown strong test-retest reliability (Dodrill, 1983) and validity (McKelvie, 1989).

Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behay. 28, 399-421 (2007) DOI: 10.1002/job

This content downloaded from 81.245.208.184 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 08:22:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 10: Emotional Intelligence and Individual Performance: Evidence of Direct and Moderated Effects

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE 407

We also included measures of the other Big Five personality dimensions (i.e., neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and intellectual curiosity) using scales from Goldberg's (1999) Big Five inventory. We were particularly interested in controlling for agreeableness, which has been used as a measure of social skill (Witt et al., 2002), as well as for neuroticism and extraversion, both of which have been shown to be related to EI (Day & Carroll, 2004; Lopes, Salovey, & Straus, 2003) and performance (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Judge et al., 1999). Each scale included five items, and displayed acceptable internal reliabilities (Table 1). Finally, since general mental ability represents an alternate ability (i.e., to EI), we controlled for the interaction term of general mental ability multiplied by conscientiousness to ensure that our interpretation of the EI-conscientiousness interaction was not confounded.

We performed a factor analysis to establish the discriminant validity among the EI, personality, and interpersonal effectiveness measures, using common factor analysis with oblique rotation, and retaining all factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0. As shown in Table 1, the analysis resulted in a seven-factor solution with minimal cross loadings. The eight EI items loaded onto a single factor, so we used a single EI composite measure consisting of the arithmetic mean of the eight task scores in our subsequent analyses. These results were consistent with previous analyses that have found evidence of an overall EI factor (Mayer et al., 2002; Palmer, Gignac, Manocha, & Stough, 2005). The items from the remaining measures each loaded onto a single factor, except for the speech rating score, which did not display loadings greater than 0.30 on any of the factors. Overall, the results supported the discriminant validity of the measures.

Finally, we controlled for country of citizenship, as a proxy of spoken and written English skills, which may have affected scores on the assessment center tasks for some students. We classified respondents from the United States and from countries outside the United States where English is the official or most widespread spoken language as '1,' and all other respondents as 'O.' We planned to control for gender and age, both of which have been shown to be related to EI (Mayer et al., 2002), but only gender showed sufficient variance to have any effect in our sample. Gender was coded as '0' for males and '1' for females.

Analyses

We tested our hypotheses by performing three hierarchical multiple regressions with group behavior effectiveness, public speaking effectiveness, and GPA as the respective dependent variables. In each of these regressions, we entered gender, citizenship, the Big Five (personality), general mental ability, and the interaction term for conscientiousness and general mental ability in Step 1, EI in Step 2, and the interaction of conscientiousness and EI in Step 3. Following the recommendation of Cronbach (1987), we centered the applicable variables before creating the interaction terms, to reduce multicollinearity commonly associated with the analysis of moderator effects. None of the centered interaction terms were correlated highly with the main effects variables (r = -0.19 to 0.12).

Results

We list descriptive statistics and intercorrelations in Table 2. EI was correlated with all three-performance criteria: group behavior effectiveness (r = 0.17, p < 0.01), public speaking effectiveness (r = 0.15, p < 0.01), and GPA (r = 0.16, p < 0.01).

Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behay. 28, 399-421 (2007) DOI: 10.1002/job

This content downloaded from 81.245.208.184 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 08:22:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 11: Emotional Intelligence and Individual Performance: Evidence of Direct and Moderated Effects

Table

1. Results

of common

factor

analysis

examining

discriminant

validity

among

emotional

intelligence,

personality

and

interpersonal

effectiveness

measures

Emotional intelligence

Emotional stability

Conscien- tiousness

Agree- ableness

Group

behavior

effectiveness

Openness

to

experience

Extra- version

Talk

to a lot of people

at parties

0.76

-0.07

-0.07

0.01

0.08

0.02

-0.08

Life

of the

party

0.73

0.02

0.12

0.00

-0.18

-0.08

0.06

Comfortable

around

people

0.72

0.00

-0.01

0.05

0.13

0.04

-0.02

Center

of attention

0.59

0.02

0.10

-0.01

0.13

0.09

0.10

Start

conversations

0.57

0.01

-0.19

0.11

-0.06

-0.02

0.15

Emotional

management

task

0.10

0.68

-0.07

0.04

0.16

0.07

-0.07

Emotional

relations

task

0.04

0.66

-0.07

0.10

0.12

0.03

-0.05

Facilitation

task

0.01

0.64

0.04

0.00

0.07

0.03

-0.05

Changes

task

-0.04

0.59

0.04

-0.08

0.02

0.08

0.02

Blends

task

0.00

0.58

-0.03

-0.10

0.01

0.17

0.07

Sensation

task

0.02

0.56

-0.02

0.00

-0.07

-0.11

0.01

Faces

task

-0.04

0.55

0.09

-0.04

0.02

-0.11

-0.01

Pictures

task

-0.04

0.38

-0.14

0.01

-0.00

-0.03

-0.04

Get

upset

easily

(rev)

-0.10

0.05

-0.80

-0.04

-0.08

0.01

-0.03

Stressed

out

easily

(rev)

-0.04

-0.11

-0.74

-0.13

0.04

0.01

0.08

Frequent

mood

swings

(rev)

-0.09

0.09

-0.74

0.09

0.02

-0.09

-0.02

Relaxed

most

of the

time

0.09

-0.08

-0.59

-0.22

0.05

0.05

0.03

Worry

about

things

(rev)

-0.03

0.10

-0.59

-0.02

-0.21

0.11

-0.01

Always

prepared

-0.04

0.02

-0.06

0.73

-0.03

-0.06

0.15

Follow

a schedule

-0.03

0.01

0.14

0.73

-0.07

0.07

-0.05

Pay

attention

to details

0.11

-0.09

0.05

0.69

0.07

-0.03

-0.12

Am

exacting

in my

work

0.00

-0.05

0.07

0.63

-0.05

0.04

0.00

Get

chores

done

right

away

0.11

0.09

0.04

0.49

0.06

0.00

0.24

Insult

people

(rev)

-0.10

-0.04

0.01

-0.03

0.78

0.01

0.01

Interested

in people

-0.03

0.04

-0.04

0.05

0.76

-0.02

-0.08

Feel

emotions

of others

0.06

-0.02

0.08

-0.05

0.72

0.03

0.05

Take

time

out

for

others

0.16

0.09

0.04

0.05

0.55

-0.05

0.06

Little

concern

for

others

0.35

0.17

-0.09

-0.02

0.41

0.04

0.12

Group

discussion

1 rating

score

0.02

-0.01

0.00

0.00

-0.01

0.72

-0.06

Group

discussion

2 rating

score

0.04

0.01

-0.05

0.00

0.01

0.71

-0.02

Have

rich

vocabulary

0.05

-0.04

-0.05

0.11

-0.08

0.02

0.61

Have

excellent

ideas

0.14

-0.09

-0.03

0.14

-0.03

0.01

0.59

Different

understanding

of abstract

ideas

(rev)

0.09

0.02

0.11

-0.20

0.04

-0.05

0.47

Quick

to understand

things

0.02

0.01

-0.21

0.10

0.15

-0.10

0.47

Spend

time

reflecting

on things

-0.03

-0.07

0.16

-0.02

0.23

0.09

0.30

Speech

rating

score

-0.10

0.15

0.01

0.09

-0.06

0.09

0.13

Eigenvalue

of rotated

factor

3.33

3.07

2.96

2.74

2.99

1.27

2.17

Unique

variance

explained

14.02%

11.23%

8.76%

6.98%

5.30%

4.45%

4.40%

Note:

Extraction

method

= principal

axis

factoring.

Rotation

method

= oblique.

Bold

indicates

factor

loadings

greater

than

0.30.

408 J. C. RODE ET AL.

Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behay. 28, 399-421 (2007) DOI: 10.1002/job

This content downloaded from 81.245.208.184 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 08:22:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 12: Emotional Intelligence and Individual Performance: Evidence of Direct and Moderated Effects

Table

2. Means,

standard

deviations,

cronbach's

alphas,

and

intercorrelations

among

variables

(N=378)

8

3

1

5

9

2

11

7

10

6

4

Mean

SD

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Emotional

intelligence

92.93

13.99

(0.81)

General

mental

ability

25.44

4.93

0.20**

Conscientiousness

3.43

0.74

0.02

0.04

(0.89)

Emotional

stability

3.16

0.88

0.16**

0.14**

0.25**

(0.81)

Extraversion

3.45

0.84

-0.06

-0.14**

0.17**

-0.02

(0.78)

Agreeableness

3.80

0.66

0.08

-0.11*

0.11*

-0.11*

0.35**

(0.79)

Intellectual

curiosity

3.52

0.60

-0.03

0.09

0.21**

-0.06

0.36**

0.29**

(0.70)

Gender

(female

%)

0.46

0.26**

-0.09

0.19**

-0.23**

-0.03

0.14**

-0.09

Citizenship

(English-speaking

%)

0.90

0.13*

0.18**

0.12*

0.04

0.12*

0.02

0.04

0.08

GPA

3.21

0.39

0.16**

0.41**

0.14**

0.08

-0.14**

-0.05

0.01

0.08

0.00

Public

speaking

effectiveness

0.00

1.00

0.15**

0.10

0.11*

0.00

-0.07

-0.04

0.09

0.11*

0.04

0.15**

Group

behavior

effectiveness

0.00

1.47

0.17**

0.13*

0.10

0.00

-0.05

-0.04

0.04

0.19**

0.08

0.25**

0.44**

Note:

Cronbach's

alphas

listed

on diagonal,

in parentheses,

where

applicable.

*p < 0.05.

**p

<0.01.

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE 409

Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behay. 28, 399-421 (2007) DOI: 10.1002/job

This content downloaded from 81.245.208.184 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 08:22:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 13: Emotional Intelligence and Individual Performance: Evidence of Direct and Moderated Effects

410 J. C. RODE ET AL.

Results of the hierarchical multiple regressions are shown in Table 3. EI was significantly related to

public speaking effectiveness (6 = 0.12, p < 0.05, AR2 = 0.01), but not to group behavior effectiveness, providing partial support for Hypothesis 1. EI was not significantly associated with GPA, contrary to our prediction in Hypothesis 2. Interaction terms for EI and conscientiousness were significantly related to all outcome variables: group behavior effectiveness (8 = 0.19, p < 0.01, 0R2 = 0.03), public speaking effectiveness (0 = 0.16, p < 0.01, 0R2 = 0.02), and GPA 66 = 0.14, p < 0.05, 0R2 = 0.01). Thus, we found support for both Hypotheses 3 and 4. To identify the form of the interaction effects, we

plotted the explanation of performance at high and low levels (1.0 and -1.0 standard deviations from the mean; Aiken & West, 1991) of the three significant interaction terms (Figures 1-3). The plots were consistent with our expectation that the EI-performance relationships would be stronger at high levels of motivation (i.e., conscientiousness) than at low levels.

Discussion

Overall, we found that EI explained direct, unique incremental variance in only one of our performance measures, interpersonal effectiveness as indicated by our measure of public speaking effectiveness. However, the interaction of EI and conscientiousness was significantly and consistently related to all three dependent variables (group behavior effectiveness, public speaking effectiveness, and GPA).

Direct effects

Of the three criterion measures, public speaking effectiveness may be the one most overtly linked to the

management and expression of emotion for two reasons. First, speech making is an inherently emotive

exercise; pathos or the ability to arouse emotions in listeners, is one of the three fundamental elements of persuasion (Aristotle, 1991; Walker, 2005). Participants higher in EI were presumably more effective at incorporating appropriate levels of emotion into their speeches and consequently scored better on this task. Second, public speaking creates particularly high levels of stress and anxiety for many people. In the present study, this effect may have been even more pronounced as the participants were under strict time constraints and performed their speeches in front of a camera that served as a constant reminder that their performance would be replayed and rated by experts in communication. Participants who could calm their nerves and focus their mental energies (i.e., high EI) under these extreme conditions were presumably more effective at both creating and delivering well organized and supportive content, than those with low EI. Thus, not only was the linkage between EI and speech more direct by nature, but it was made even more salient by the way in which the speech task was constructed.

In contrast, several factors may have mitigated the relationship between EI and group behavior effectiveness and general academic performance, respectively. First, responsibility for the process and the outcome of the group discussion tasks was shared collectively by multiple participants. No one

person was singularly in control of either the content or the timing of the discussion; nor was one individual ever the sole focus of the video camera. Presumably this resulted in less stress for the individual. Similarly, although general academic performance is punctuated by events that are acutely stressful (e.g., exams), this intensity is not maintained for the entire duration over which GPA is measured. We would further note that academic performance is strongly related to general mental

ability (Kuncel, Hezlett, & Ones, 2004) and likely had the least emotive content of all of our

performance measures.

Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behay. 28, 399-421 (2007) DOI: 10.1002/job

This content downloaded from 81.245.208.184 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 08:22:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 14: Emotional Intelligence and Individual Performance: Evidence of Direct and Moderated Effects

Table

3. Results

of hierarchical

multiple

regression

analysis

of performance

measures

(N=

378)

Group

behavior

effectiveness

Public

speaking

effectiveness

Academic

performance

R2

AR2

F

0

R2

AR2

F

16

R2

AR2

F

Step

1 Gender

(female)

0.19**

0.10

0.09

Citizenship

(English-speaking)

0.03

0.00

-0.09

Emotional

stability

0.02

0.01

0.08

Extraversion

-0.04

-0.09

-0.09

Agreeableness

-0.07

-0.08

0.00

Intellectual

curiosity

0.07

0.13*

-0.01

Conscientiousness

0.03

0.07

0.14**

General

mental

ability

(GMA)

0.09

0.05

0.39**

GMA

x conscientiousness

-0.01

0.05

0.02

0.03

-0.05

0.20

Step

2 Emotional

intelligence

(EI)

0.10

0.06

0.01

0.12*

0.04

0.01*

0.06

0.20

0.00

Step

3 EI x conscientiousness

0.19**

0.09

0.03**

4.04**

0.16**

0.06

0.02**

3.07**

0.14*

0.21

0.01**

9.51**

Note:

Standardized

regression

coefficients

are from

the full

model.

R2 is adjusted.

*p < 0.05.

**p

<0.01.

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE 411

Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behay. 28, 399-421 (2007) DOI: 10.1002/job

This content downloaded from 81.245.208.184 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 08:22:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 15: Emotional Intelligence and Individual Performance: Evidence of Direct and Moderated Effects

412 J. C. RODE ET AL.

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

High Conscientiousness

Low Conscientiousness

-1 SD +1 SD Emotional Intelligence

Figure 1. Interaction of emotional intelligence and conscientiousness as a predictor of group behavior effec- tiveness. Note: Upper and lower lines represent 95% confidence intervals

Based on the results from our direct hypothesis tests only, we might well have concluded

(prematurely) that EI is significantly related to performance only in contexts with explicitly strong emotive content. In other words, the type of performance does matter. The failure of prior studies to

consistently control for both general mental ability and personality may have confounded this

High Conscientiousness

Low Conscientiousness 3

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

-1 SD +1 SD Emotional Intelligence

Figure 2. Interaction of emotional intelligence and conscientiousness as a predictor of public speaking effec- tiveness. Note: Upper and lower lines represent 95% confidence intervals

Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behay. 28, 399-421 (2007) DOI: 10.1002/job

Public

Speaking

Effectivness

Group

Behavior

Effectivness

This content downloaded from 81.245.208.184 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 08:22:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 16: Emotional Intelligence and Individual Performance: Evidence of Direct and Moderated Effects

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE 413

distinction, leading researchers to overestimate the relative importance of EI with respect to individual performance. Indeed, prior studies with the most positive, direct results tended to omit one or both of these important control variables (e.g., Bar-On, 2000; Law et al., 2004).

Indirect effects

Such an interpretation cannot, however, explain why we found evidence of a significant and positive indirect relationship (1-3% incremental variance explained) between EI and individual performance (as moderated by conscientiousness) across all three performance contexts. The consistency of the results from our moderator analyses is notable, especially when considering the distinct nature of the three dependent variables. Public speaking effectiveness primarily involved one-way communication, whereas group behavior effectiveness required a broader range of interpersonal behaviors; academic performance requires a mix of both forms of interpersonal effectiveness, but is also heavily reliant on solitary activities (e.g., studying, taking exams, etc.). The interpersonal effectiveness measures took place in a simulated and therefore constrained environment, while GPA is as real as performance can get for most college students. Yet EI proved to be important in all three settings, in cases where students had high levels of motivation. Intriguingly, our results also suggested that motivation in the relative absence of EI could potentially have a negative effect on performance (e.g., the highly motivated student who does not have the ability to deal effectively with the stress of academic work).

The finding that the interaction between EI and conscientiousness was significantly related to GPA is especially notable for at least two reasons. First, GPA was based on performance over a much longer time frame (2-3 years) than the few hours spent preparing for, and engaging in, assessment center activities. Academic success over the long term also includes a much wider array of performance contexts as students must create and maintain effective relationships with multiple professors, adapt to differing classroom policies and performance expectations, navigate a variety of different team tasks and settings, and make daily decisions about personal goals, priorities, and time management. Thus, overall academic performance required the ongoing use of effective coping strategies under both structured and unstructured conditions, as well as the facilitation of interpersonal interactions across a wide variety of contexts and situations. Yet, in spite of all these potentially confounding factors, the same basic relationship was observed.

Second, GPA represents a more conservative test of our hypotheses than the interpersonal effectiveness measures. Indeed, few performance measures are as objective and as explicitly dependent on general mental ability as academic performance, which relies heavily on reading comprehension, memory, and other associated skills. Our finding that EI in concert with conscientiousness explained additional unique variance in GPA, above and beyond the effects of cognitive ability, is therefore all the more striking.

Implications

Assuming our results are replicable in the workplace, our study has some interesting implications for managers engaged in selecting, training, and evaluating employees. Namely, while EI alone does not appear to be strongly and directly related to individual performance, screening for the presence of both EI and conscientiousness, in addition to the traditional list of desired candidate characteristics, may serve to increase the overall level of employee performance within the organization.

The performance of existing employees, meanwhile, may be enhanced through careful analysis and development of the characteristic(s) they lack most. Several theorists have argued that EI may be

Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behay. 28, 399-421 (2007) DOI: 10.1002/job

This content downloaded from 81.245.208.184 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 08:22:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 17: Emotional Intelligence and Individual Performance: Evidence of Direct and Moderated Effects

414 J. C. RODE ET AL.

High Conscientiousness Low Conscientiousness

3.8

3.6

3.4

3.2

3

2.8

2.6

2.4 -1 SD +1 SD

Emotional Intelligence

Figure 3. Interaction of emotional intelligence and conscientiousness as a predictor of academic performance (GPA). Note: Upper and lower lines represent 95% confidence intervals

malleable. For example, Ashkanasy and Daus (2002) describe a number of methods that may increase EI, including training interventions, behavior modeling by key managers, and organizational culture change. The literature is likewise replete with recommendations for increasing workplace motivation.

Our study suggests, however, that programs aimed at increasing EI and motivation are not simply alternative pathways to the same end goal. Rather, we found that high levels of both EI and motivation are necessary, if performance gains are to be achieved. Conversely, our results imply that incentive systems designed to increase motivation in the absence of requisite emotional skills may, in certain instances, actually decrease performance. Placing an employee with low EI into a highly motivating work environment could potentially elicit a host of undesirable behaviors, including manipulation, aggression, and/or withdrawal as a way to cope with increased stress and anxiety. Nevertheless, we caution that we did not directly measure the potential negative effects of low EI and high motivation on performance, but have inferred them based on theoretical arguments and the results of our interaction analyses. More research regarding this intriguing possibility is required.

Limitations

Our findings should, of course, be subjected to further empirical verification. Utilizing a sample of undergraduate business students provided us with a relatively homogeneous setting in which to test our proposed relationships but at the potential cost of external generalizability. Future research is needed to determine whether our results will hold up in other samples. Related to this, our criterion measures were of general academic performance and interpersonal effectiveness in a simulated work environment and not job performance or ratings of interpersonal effectiveness in the workplace. Additional studies are needed to examine whether our findings hold in the work context as well. It may be that EI is even more pertinent to job performance in today's workplace, which requires employees to

Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behay. 28, 399-421 (2007) DOI: 10.1002/job

GPA

This content downloaded from 81.245.208.184 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 08:22:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 18: Emotional Intelligence and Individual Performance: Evidence of Direct and Moderated Effects

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE 415

deal with increasing levels of ambiguity and stress and is also becoming more dependent on multidisciplinary teams (e.g., Hogan & Shelton, 1998; Pfeffer, 1998).

Such studies should pay careful attention to the evolving debate as to how best to measure EI. We used the MSCEIT(c) V2.0, a behavioral measure of EI developed and extensively validated by Mayer et al. (2002) after a decade of research. However, methodological questions remain concerning the behavioral approach, particularly with respect to the consensus scoring procedure (e.g., Roberts, Zeidner, & Matthews, 2001), and will require continued monitoring. Finally, although we did use longitudinal data in our analyses of interpersonal effectiveness, our analyses of academic performance did not employ longitudinal data, so we cannot make any definitive causal statements with respect to this criterion.

Conclusions

Despite these limitations, our study makes several important contributions to the growing body of knowledge surrounding EI. We expanded previous research by incorporating known predictors of performance, including a broader range of outcome criteria, and explicitly testing for boundary conditions, in a study that utilized a well-supported measure of EI. Accordingly, our results provide stronger evidence that EI explains additional, unique variance in theoretically related criteria than has previously been available. Most importantly, our findings indicate that the relationship between EI and individual performance is more complex than previously thought. Had we not considered multiplicative as well as additive effects, we would have missed the intriguing and consistent role played by EI when it is accompanied by correspondingly high levels of motivation. In sum, the relationship between EI and various outcome criteria may not be adequately captured by models focusing solely on direct effects. Future studies that incorporate more complex models, such as the moderated analyses in the present study, may therefore yield greater insight into the predictive validity of this potentially important construct.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank John Mayer, Peter Salovey, and David Caruso for permission to use their scale for data collection. The authors also appreciate the thoughtful comments we received from the editor and three anonymous reviewers. This research was supported by the Coleman Chair and the Subhedar Chair Research Funds.

Author biographies

Joseph C. Rode is an assistant professor of management in the Richard T. Farmer School of Business at Miami (OH) University. He received his PhD in organizational behavior from Indiana University. His research interests include relationships between work and nonwork domains, and the influence of attitudes and emotions on employee performance and behavior.

Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behay. 28, 399-421 (2007) DOI: 10.1002/job

This content downloaded from 81.245.208.184 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 08:22:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 19: Emotional Intelligence and Individual Performance: Evidence of Direct and Moderated Effects

416 J. C. RODE ET AL.

Christine H. Mooney is a visiting scholar at the Kelley School of Business at Indiana University, where she received her PhD in Strategic Management. Her research interests are executive succession, inside directors, corporate governance. Marne L. Arthaud-Day is an assistant professor of management at Kansas State University. She received her PhD from Indiana University. Her research interests include the role played by values and attitudes in strategic decision-making, corporate governance, corporate wrongdoing, and corporate social responsibility. Janet P. Near holds the Coleman Chair of Management in the Kelley School of Business at Indiana

University. Her research concerns (a) predictors and outcomes of whistle blowing in organizations, and (b) the relationship between work and nonwork domains of life, focusing on predictors and outcomes of

job and life satisfaction. Timothy T. Baldwin is a professor of management at the Indiana University Kelley School of Business. He holds a PhD in human resource management from Michigan State University. His research interests include management education and employee training and development. He has

published his research work in Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology and Academy of Management Executive. Robert S. Rubin is an assistant professor in the management department at DePaul University's Kellstadt Graduate School of Business. He received his PhD in organizational psychology from Saint Louis University. His current research interests include transformational/ transactional leadership, leader cynicism, social and emotional individual differences and management pedagogy. William H. Bommer is an associate professor in the management and labor relations department at Cleveland State University's Nance College of Business. He received his PhD in organizational behavior from Indiana University. His primary research interests include transformational/transac- tional leadership, organizational citizenship, leadership development, and research methods. He has

published his research in journals including Academy ofManagement Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology, Journal of Management,and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Andersen, P. A., & Guerrero, L. K. (1998). Principles of communication and emotion in social interaction. In P. Andersen, & L. Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook of communication and emotion (pp. 49-96). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Aristotle (1991). The art of rhetoric with English translation by John Henry Freese. Book 1, Chapter 1. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ashkanasy, N. M., & Daus, C. S. (2002). Emotion in the workplace: The new challenge for managers. Academy of Management Executive, 16, 76-86.

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bar-On, R. (2000). Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the emotional quotient inventory. In R.

Bar-On, & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence (1st ed., pp. 368-388). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Barchard, K. A. (2003). Does emotional intelligence assist in the prediction of academic success? Educational & Psychological Measurement, 63, 840-859.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.

Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behay. 28, 399-421 (2007) DOI: 10.1002/job

This content downloaded from 81.245.208.184 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 08:22:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 20: Emotional Intelligence and Individual Performance: Evidence of Direct and Moderated Effects

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE 417

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). The FFM personality dimensions and job performance: Meta-analysis of meta-analyses. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9,9-30.

Benne, K. D., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4,41-49. Bernardin, H. J., & Buckley, M. R. (1981). Strategies in rater training. Academy of Management Review, 6,

205-212. 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. Brackett, M. A., Mayer, J. D., & Warner, R. M. (2004). Emotional intelligence and its expression in everyday

behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1387-1402. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO personality inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological

Assessment Resources. Cronbach, L. (1987). Statistical tests for moderator variables: Flaw in analysis recently proposed. Psychological

Bulletin, 102, 414-417. Daly, J. A., & McCroskey, J. C. (1984). Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence and communication

apprehension. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: In search of an elusive construct. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 989-1015. Day, A. L., & Carroll, S. A. (2004). Using an ability-based measure of emotional intelligence to predict individual

performance, group performance, and group citizenship behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1443-1458.

DeVito, J. A. (2004). The interpersonal communication book (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Digman, J. M., & Inouye, J. (1986). Further specification of five robust factors of personality. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 116-123. Dodrill, C. B. (1981). An economical method for the evaluation of general intelligence in adults. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 4, 668-673. Dodrill, C. B. (1983). Long term reliability of the Wonderlic Personnel Test. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 51, 316-317. Dodrill, C. B., & Warner, M. H. (1988). Further studies of the Wonderlic Personnel Test as a brief measure of

intelligence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 145-147. Ellis, H. C., & Ashbrook, P. W. (1988). Resource allocation model of the effects of depressed mood. In K. Fiedler,

& J. Forgas (Eds). Affect, cognition and social behavior (pp. 25-43). Toronto, Canada: C.J. Feyerherm, A. E., & Rice, C. L. (2002). Emotional intelligence and team performance: The good, the bad and the

ugly. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 10, 343-362. Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26-34. Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets

of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Dreary, F De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology of Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7-28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books. Guerrero, L. K., Andersen, P. A., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Communication and emotion: Basic concepts and

approaches. In P. Andersen, & L. Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook of communication and emotion (pp. 3-27). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York, NY: Wiley. Hogan, R., & Shelton, D. (1998). A socioanalytic perspective on job performance. Human Performance, 11,

129-144. Hollenbeck, J., Brief, A., Whitener, E., & Pauli, K. (1988). An empirical note on the interaction of personality and

aptitude in personnel selection. Journal of Management, 14, 441-451. Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The "Big 5" revisited. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 85, 869-879. Jex, S. M. (1998). Stress and job performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Jordan, P. J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Hartel, E. J. (2002). Emotional intelligence as a moderator of emotional and

behavioral reactions to job insecurity. The Academy of Management Review, 27, 316-372. Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2004). Managing emotions during team problem solving: Emotional intelligence and

conflict resolution. Human Performance, 17, 195-218. Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The "Big 5" personality traits, general

mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621-652. Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797-807.

Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behay. 28, 399-421 (2007) DOI: 10.1002/job

This content downloaded from 81.245.208.184 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 08:22:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 21: Emotional Intelligence and Individual Performance: Evidence of Direct and Moderated Effects

418 J. C. RODE ET AL.

Knapp, M. L., Miller, G. R., & Fudge, K. (1993). Background and current trends in the study of interpersonal communication. In M. L. Knapp, & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (2nd ed., pp. 3-20). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kuncel, N. R., Hezlett, S. A., & Ones, D. S. (2004). Academic performance, career potential, creativity, and job performance: Can one construct predict them all? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 148- 161.

Law, S., Wong, C., & Song, L. (2004). The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 483-496.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress appraisal and coping. New York, NY: Springer. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and

organizational psychology. (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally. Locke, E. A. (1991). Goal theory vs. control theory: Contrasting approaches to understanding work motivation.

Motivation & Emotion, 15, 9-28.

Lopes, P. N., Brackett, M. A., Nezlek, J. B., Schutz, A., Sellin, I., & Salovey, P. (2004). Emotional intelligence and social interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1018-1034.

Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., & Straus, R. (2003). Emotional intelligence, personality and the perceived quality of social relationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 641-658.

MacCann, C., Roberts, R., Matthews, G., & Zeidner, M. (2003). Consensus scoring and empirical option weighting of performance-based emotional intelligence (EI) tests. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 645-662.

Maier, N. R. (1958). Psychology in industry. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin. Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for an

intelligence. Intelligence, 27,267-298. Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence of emotional intelligence. Intelligence, 17, 433-442. Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey, & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional

development and emotional intelligence: Implications for educators (pp. 3-31). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2000). Models of emotional intelligence. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence. (pp. 396-420). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2002). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT): User's manual. Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Theory, findings, and implications. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 197-215.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D., & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEI V2.0. Emotion, 3, 97-105.

McKelvie, S. J. (1989). The Wonderlic Personnel Test: Reliability and validity in an academic setting. Psychological Reports, 65, 161-162.

Mobley, W. H., Griffith, R. W., Hand, H. H., & Meglino, B. M. (1979). Review and conceptual analysis of employee turnover process. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 493-522.

Moon, H. (2001). The two faces of conscientiousness: Duty and achievement striving in escalation of commitment dilemmas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 533-540.

Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1995). The Big Five personality dimensions: Implications for research and practice in human resource management. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 13, 153-200.

Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Strauss, J. (1999). The joint relationship of conscientiousness and ability with performance: Test of the interaction hypothesis. Journal of Management, 25, 707-721.

Newsome, S., Day, A. L., & Catano, V. L. (2000). Assessing the predictive validity of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 1005-1116.

O'Connor, R. M., & Little, I. S. (2003). Revisiting the predictive validity of emotional intelligence: Self-report versus ability-based measures. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1893-1902.

O'Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1994). Working smarter and harder: A longitudinal study of managerial success. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 603-627.

O'Rourke, J. S. (2004). Management communication: A case-analysis approach (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Palmer, R. P., Gignac, G., Manocha, R., & Stough, C. (2005). A psychometric evaluation of the Mayer-

Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test Version 2.0. Intelligence, 33, 285-305. Petrides, K. V., Frederickson, N., & Furnham, A. (2004). The role of trait emotional intelligence in academic

performance and deviant behavior at school. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 277-293.

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behay. 28,399-421 (2007) DOI: 10.1002/job

This content downloaded from 81.245.208.184 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 08:22:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 22: Emotional Intelligence and Individual Performance: Evidence of Direct and Moderated Effects

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE 419

Pfeffer, J. (1998). The human equation: Building profits by putting people first. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Pinder, C. (1984). Work motivation: Theory, issues and applications. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Ree, M. J., & Earles, J. A. (1992). Intelligence is the best predictor of job performance. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 1, 86-89. Reilly, R. R., Henry, S., & Smither, J. W. (1990). An examination of the effects of using behavioral checklists on the

construct validity of assessment center dimensions. Personnel Psychology, 43, 71-84. Roberts, R. D., Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2001). Does emotional intelligence meet traditional standards for an

intelligence? Some new data and conclusions. Emotion, 1, 196-231. Sackett, P. R., Gruys, M. L., & Ellingson, J. E. (1998). Ability-personality interactions when predicting job

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 545-556. Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). The positive psychology of emotional intelligence. In C. R.

Snyder, & S. J. Lopes (Eds.). Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 159-171). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1992). Causal modeling of processes determining job performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 89-92.

Schmidt, E L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology and practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274.

Trapnell, P. D., & Wiggins, J. S. (1990). Extension of the interpersonal adjective scales to include the big five dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 780-790.

Van Der Zee, K., Thijs, M., & Schakel, L. (2002). The relationship of emotional intelligence with academic intelligence and the "Big 5". European Journal of Personality, 15, 103-125.

Walker, F. R. (2005). The rhetoric of mock trial debate: Using logos, pathos and ethos in undergraduate competition. College Student Journal, 39, 277-286.

Witt, L. A., Burke, L. A., Murray, B. R., & Mount, M. K. (2002). The interactive effects of conscientiousness and agreeableness on job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 164-169.

Witt, L. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Social skill as a moderator of the conscientiousness-performance relationship: Convergent results across four studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 809-820.

WPT. (2000). The wonderlic personnel test. Libertyville, IL: Wonderlic, Inc. Wright, P., Kacmar, L., McMahan, G., & Deleeuw, K. (1995). p = f (M x A): Cognitive ability as a moderator of the

relationship between personality and job performance. Journal of Management, 21, 1129-1139.

Appendix: Behaviors included in performance ratings of speech and group discussion tasks

Procedure: Participants were rated on the extent to which they displayed the following behaviors. Each behavior incorporated precisely defined levels based on specific behavioral anchors. We weighted behaviors to reflect relative importance to overall task effectiveness (e.g., staying under the time limit was relatively less important than stating the purpose in the speech). We aggregated and standardized scores for the speech and each leaderless group discussion separately. We then averaged the two standardized leaderless group discussion scores to create the overall score used in trip analvepc

Speech

Communication delivery 1. Speaks clearly 2. Uses appropriate grammar 3. Uses appropriate nonverbals 4. Does not read speech

Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behay. 28, 399-421 (2007) DOI: 10.1002/job

This content downloaded from 81.245.208.184 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 08:22:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 23: Emotional Intelligence and Individual Performance: Evidence of Direct and Moderated Effects

420 J. C. RODE ET AL.

5. Speaks enthusiastically 6. Speaks confidently 7. Uses appropriate pace

Planning and organizing 1. Talks about assigned market 2. Under time limit 3. States purpose 4. Develops an outline 5. Clear closing statement 6. Asks for questions

Decision-making 1. Provides multiple sources of information 2. Defines decision criteria 3. Describes strengths and weaknesses of market 4. Makes recommendations 5. Addresses consequences of not following recommendation

Leaderless group discussion-customer service case

Communication delivery 1. Speaks clearly 2. Speaks concisely 3. Uses appropriate grammar 4. Uses appropriate nonverbals 5. Speaks enthusiastically

Decision-making 1. Identifies next appropriate step 2. Defines decision criteria 3. Identifies strengths and weaknesses of initiative 4. Makes appropriate recommendation 5. Evaluates consequences of recommendation 6. Considers impact on customers

Teamwork 1. Seeks input from others 2. Validates others 3. Does not interrupt 4. Checks for common understanding 5. Makes meaningful contribution 6. Refocuses others 7. Documents group discussion 8. Monitors time remaining 9. Clarifies group task

Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behay. 28, 399-421 (2007) DOI: 10.1002/job

This content downloaded from 81.245.208.184 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 08:22:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 24: Emotional Intelligence and Individual Performance: Evidence of Direct and Moderated Effects

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE 421

Leaderless group discussion-selection case

Communication delivery 1. Speaks clearly 2. Speaks concisely 3. Uses appropriate grammar 4. Uses appropriate nonverbals 5. Speaks enthusiastically

Decision-making 1. Identifies next appropriate step 2. Defines decision criteria 3. Identifies strengths and weaknesses of candidate 4. Distinguishes between relevant and irrelevant criteria (i.e., handwriting, personal information,

intelligence, personality)

Teamwork 1. Seeks input from others 2. Validates others 3. Does not interrupt 4. Checks for common understanding 5. Makes meaningful contribution 6. Refocuses others 7. Documents group discussion 8. Monitors time remaining 9. Clarifies group task

Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behay. 28, 399-421 (2007) DOI: 10.1002/job

This content downloaded from 81.245.208.184 on Sat, 12 Jul 2014 08:22:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions