Emotional Intelligence: The State of the Fad Part I

“Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?”
“That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,” said the Cat.
“I don’t much care where” said Alice.
“Then it doesn’t matter which way you go,” said the Cat.

Lewis Carroll, 1865

An article of mine in Talent Management Magazine describes the most popular way to measure and assess the increasingly faddish and confusing concept of emotional intelligence and emotional and social competence: “It’s Not How Smart Your Are, but How You Are Smart” ((Nowack, K. (2007). It’s Not How Smart You Are But How Your Are Smart. Talent Management, 3 (10) p. 10)).

WHAT IS EI AND HOW IS IT DIFFERENT FROM EMOTIONAL AND SOCIAL COMPETENCE?

There appears to be no dearth in controversies regarding the construct of “Emotional Intelligence”. Today, it is still unclear if “emotional intelligence” is measuring social intelligence, interpersonal competence, self-awareness, emotional control, relationship intelligence, aspects of the “big five” personality constructs, emotional competence, emotional resilience, core self-evaluations, transformational leadership, intrapersonal intelligence or other related concepts (or aspects of all of them). What is clearer is that there is a difference between definitions and models of emotional intelligence and emotional and social competence ((Joseph & Newman (2010).  Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 54-78)).

For a wealth of resources, research and discussion on the topic of emotional intelligence, you might want to check out the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence for Organizations.

HOW DO YOU MEASURE EI?

There are at least three distinct approaches to measuring EI and emotional and social competence representing different models. The first, delineated by Reuven Bar-On, was influenced by his interest in the aspects of performance not linked to intelligence; the second, Daniel Goleman’s interpretation, approached EI through competencies; and the third, represented by Mayer and Salovey, was influenced by their interest in the relationship between cognition and emotion.

These three approaches have led to diverse and non-overlapping measures of EI characterized as: 1) Personality oriented (e.g, Bar-On Emotion Quotient Inventory); 2) Competency or “Mixed” model oriented (e.g., Emotional Intelligence View 360); and 3) Ability or skill oriented (e.g., Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT).

DOES IT PREDICT ANYTHING?

A recent meta-analysis of 69 independent studies explored the predictive validity of emotional intelligence with diverse job performance outcomes ((Van Rooy, D.L. & Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotional intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation of predictive validity and nomological net, Journal of Vocational Behavior , 65, 71-95)). Their results suggested diverse measures of EI correlated .23 with job performance (k=19, N=4158) and .22 with general mental ability.

These findings suggest that caution should be used when using common measures of EI to make predictions about future job performance and career/life success but a growing literature seems to support a significant association between diverse measures of EI and work performance, particularly in positions requiring social and interpersonal competence ((Chernis, C. (2009).  Emotional intelligence: Towards clarification of a concept.  Industrial and Organizational  Psychology, 3, 110-126)).

In fact, in a review by Joseph and Newman (2010), they found a negative association between measures of EI and work performance when jobs do not require strong social skills.  Although the sample sizes for this analysis were rather low (N = 220 and N =223, respectively) it does suggest that EI is important for positions like sales, customer service and leadership and less important in predicting performance and success when high levels of interpersonal interaction are required ((Joseph, D. & Newman, D. (2010).  Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 54-78)).  Other findings by Newman include:

• Self-report (mixed) measures and ability based measures do not appear to be assessing the same thing
• “Mixed” measures show incremental validity over mental ability and personality measures but it is not clear why
• When dealing with high emotional labor jobs, all types of EI/ESC measures exhibit meaningful incremental validity over cognitive validity and personality (weaker or negative for low emotional labor positions)
• Ability based EI measures favor women and Whites

A newer 2010 meta-analysis by O’Boyle et al. included 65% more studies and twice the sample size to estimate EI and job performance outcomes ((O’Boyle, E., Humphrey, R., Pollack, Hawver, T. & Story, P. (2010).  The relationship between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10.1002/job.714)).  Their findings extent those of Newman (2010):

• Trait, personality and mixed measures demonstrated corrected correlations ranging from 0.24 to 0.30 with job performance
• All measures show incremental validity over cognitive ability and personality measures

What it all means is that there is no doubt that sometimes leaders who are “competent jerks” do succeed despite their lack of emotional intelligence (often causing mental stress and adverse emotional states for talent. All things being equal, I’d rather work with and follow either the “likable stars” or “lovable fools” ((Casciaro & Lobo (June 2005). Competent Jerks, Lovable Fools and the Formation of Social Networks. Harvard Business Review, 82, 92-100)).  Be well…..

Ken Nowack

Kenneth Nowack, Ph.D. is a licensed psychologist (PSY13758) and President & Chief Research Officer/Co-Founder of Envisia Learning, is a member of the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations. Ken also serves as the Associate Editor of Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research. His recent book Clueless: Coaching People Who Just Don’t Get It is available for free for a limited time by signing up for free blog updates (Learn more at our website)