This chapter is concerned with an elaboration of the concept of emotional intelligence and also various related concepts. These are explained and there would also be an explanation of various opinions of experts on the subject. There would also be an explanation of models relating to emotional intelligence and a model would be used to explain the way that emotional intelligence can impact performance of managers. Various opinions of academicians are outlined in this chapter.
2.2 Emotional Intelligence Defined
It is theorized that emotional intelligence can be a sort of combination of competencies and these skills are likely to contribute to a managers ability to manage and monitor their own emotions and to correctly gauge the emotional state in relation to others and to influence opinions (Caudron, 1999) and (Goleman, 1998). Goleman elaborate on a model of five dimensions and it is noted here that every area has its own set of behavioural attributes that are as follows:
Get your grade
or your money back
using our Essay Writing Service!
1. Self-awareness is the capability to recognize a feeling as it happens, so as to accurately perform self-assessments and also to have self-confidence. This can be noted as being a keystone of emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995) and (Bliss, 2010).
2. Self-management or self-regulation is the capability to keep disruptive emotions and also impulses in check, to maintain standards of honesty and integrity, to take responsibility for one's performance, to handle change and also to comfortable with novel ideas and also approaches (Bliss, 2010).
3. Motivation would be the emotional tendency guiding or facilitating the attainment of various goals and these comprise of the achievement drive, commitment, initiative as well as optimism (Bliss, 2010).
4. Empathy is a sort of understanding of others through being very aware of their needs, their perspectives, their feelings, their concerns, their sensing the developmental needs of others etc (Bliss, 2010).
5. Social skills can be very fundamental to emotional intelligence and these include the capability to induce desirable responses in others through the use of effective diplomacy so as to persuade, to listen openly and also to send convincing messages, to inspire and guide groups and individuals, to nurture instrumental relationships, to work with others in terms of a shared goal as well as to create group synergy when it comes to pursuing collective goals (Bliss, 2010).
2.3 Emotional Intelligence as a Concept
In literature relating to the subject, Salovey and Mayer (1990) had first established the term 'emotional intelligence'(EI) and they had hypothesized a framework that was describing a set of skills in terms of being relevant to the accurate appraisal and expression of emotion in oneself and in others, as well as the effective regulation of emotion in self and others, and the utilization of feeling in order to motivate, plan, and also to achieve in one's life (Salovey and Mayer, 1990, p. 185).
Hence, they had implied that the two distinct mental processes, which comprise of thinking and feeling, are noted to work together. In essence, their theory of EI is noted to focus on the extent to which people's cognitive capabilities can be informed by emotions and also the extent to which emotions can be cognitively managed (George, 2000). The conceptualization by Salovey and Mayer's (1990) in relation to EI the field of management is noted to have become peppered with a deluge of different tests all purporting to be effective assessments of an individual.
2.4 Models of Emotional Intelligence
The primary models of EI that are currently available are noted to have included the multifactor emotional intelligence scale as follows:
1. MEIS Mayer et al., 1999
2. Mayer Salovey Caruso emotional intelligence test (MSCEIT) Mayer et al., 2000.
3. Emotional competency inventory (ECI) Goleman, 1998.
4. Emotion-quotient inventory (EQ-i); Bar-On, 1997.
5. Emotional intelligence quotient (EIQ) Dulewicz and Higgs, 1999.
6. Emotional quotient map (EQ-MAP) Cooper and Sawaf, 1997.
7. Self-report emotional intelligence test (SREIT) Schutte et al., 1998.
8. Swinburne emotional intelligence test (SUEIT/Genos EI Assessment) Palmer and Stough, 2001.
9. Trait meta mood scale (TMMS) Salovey et al., 1995.
10. Workgroup emotional intelligence profile (WEIP; Jordan et al., 2002).
In essence, it is so that the more established categorization of EI models are noted to involve the segregation of current models into what is noted to be mixed and ability camps (Caruso et al., 2002; Day and Carroll, 2004; Hedlund and Sternberg, 2000). These sorts of models which are noted to focus exclusively on cognitive aptitudes, making reference to EI as a form of intelligence that is reflective of the ability to process emotional information, are essentially classified as being ability models of EI (Caruso et al., 2002; Day and Carroll, 2004). It is so that there are models that incorporate a diverse range of abilities, behaviours, as well as personality traits that are present within their EI framework that are classified as being mixed models of EI (Mayer et al., 2000a). In addition to this, Daus and Ashkanasy (2005) have refined the different models of EI into a total of three streams. The stream one is premised on the capability model of EI as being measured by rating an individual's ability so as to perform EI related tasks. In relation to the stream two, this is premised on the capability model of EI but it is likely to adopt a self or peer report format. The stream 3 comprised of broader mixed models that include components that are not identified in the original definition of EI and also adopt a sort of self or peer report format. It is mentioned by Mayer (2000, p. 415) that fixed models are noted to have variables that are beyond what is meant by the terms 'emotion' or 'intelligence' or what reasonable people are noted to infer from the phrase, 'Emotional Intelligence'.
Always on Time
Marked to Standard
It is noted by Daus and Ashkanasy's (2005) that the three stream approach is noted to be the most sensitive towards variations in relation to the theoretical foundations of different models relating to EI. They acknowledged the original ability definition of EI (Salovey and Mayer, 1990) but strayed from the core ideology and through adopting a self-report/peer-report measurement format. Petrides and Furnham (2000), ignored this distinction and they group all self-report measures of EI into a generic category (trait EI), and they note that the type of measurement as opposed to the theory per se which determines the very nature of the model.
A very popular ability model of EI is conceived by Mayer and Salovey (1997) has four branch hierarchical models that are ranging from basic psychological processes towards those that are noted to be more advanced. In essence, the four branches of their model are as follows:
1. Identifying emotions. This is the capability to recognise the way that one and those that are around oneself are feeling.
2. Using emotions to help and facilitate thought. This is the capability to generate an emotion, and also to reason with this emotion.
3. Understanding emotions. The capability so as to understand complex emotions and emotional 'chains' the way that emotions change from one stage to another.
4. Managing emotions. This is the capability so as to manage emotions in oneself and in others , (Kerr et al, 2006)
2.5 Emotional intelligence and the Managerial Process
Leadership can be noted as being a sort of process in relation to social interaction where the managers ability to influence the behaviour in relation to their followers can strongly influence performance outcomes (Humphrey, 2002; Pirola-Merlo et al., 2002). So the leadership is very intrinsically an emotional process, and it is here that leaders are noted to recognise followers' emotional states, they make attempts to evoke emotions in followers, and they also seek to manage followers' emotional states accordingly (Humphrey, 2002). It is theorized by Pescosolido (2002) that managers and other organisational leaders increase group solidarity and morale through creating shared emotional experiences. It is so that the capability of leaders so as to influence the emotional climate is noted to have a very strong influence on staff performance (Humphrey, 2002).
It is theorized that EI can be a major factor in an individual's ability so as to be socially effective (George, 2000; Mayer et al., 2000b) and this is looked at in leadership literature as being a sort of key determinant of highly effective leadership (Ashkanasy and Tse, 2000; Boal and Hooijberg, 2000; George, 2000). It is mentiond by George (2000) that emotionally intelligent leaders and managers are the sort of leaders that can promote effectiveness at all levels in organisations. In essence, it is so that the EI of the manager or leader plays a very essential and important role in the quality and effectiveness of social interactions that take place with other individuals in the firm (House and Aditya, 1996). It is the hypothesis of Mayer et al. (2000a) that employees that have very high levels of EI might have smoother interactions with other members of their work teams. Salovey et al. (1999) have noted that individuals that are rated very highly in the capability so as to perceive accurately, understand, and appraise others' emotions are the sort of employees that can better able to respond flexibly to changes that take place in their social environments and they can also build very supportive networks. Mayer et al. (2000b) made a proposal that a very high level of EI might can permit a permit a manager or leader to be better able to monitor the way that the work group members are feeling, and they can then take appropriate action (Kerr et al, 2006).
2.5.1 Conflicting Results of EI Analysis
Even with the popularity of the EI concept, it is so that large amounts of published research investigating EI and performance outcomes are conducted in laboratory conditions, through the use of student sample populations (Lopes et al., 2004). In essence, it is so that these sorts of studies have essentially applied the ability model within organisational contexts and they have found mixed results. Weinberger's (2002) have investigated the relationship between EI and transformational leadership, through the use of MSCEIT, and the multifactor leadership questionnaire (Bass and Avolio, 1995) and they have found no significant correlations within a sample group of 138 managers (Kerr et al, 2006).
This Essay is
a Student's Work
This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.Examples of our work
2.5.2 Use of the EI Model (MSCEIT) to Evaluate EI
Rosete and Ciarrochi (2005) have studied 41 Australian public service managers so as to make an exploration of the relationship between ability based EI (MSCEIT), personality (16PF), cognitive intelligence (WASI) and also managerial/leadership effectiveness. In this study that is elaborated below, the higher EI scores were associated higher managerial/leadership effectiveness (Kerr et al, 2006).
In data analysis that was carried out theses researchers, there was a finding of that a total EI score had displayed a strong positive correlation with supervisor ratings (r=0.39, p<0.001). In essence, the results note that 15.2 per cent of the variation in supervisor ratings are likely to be predicted by the supervisor's total emotional intelligence score. In the American Psychological Association's (APA) taskforce in relating to psychological testing ,a conclusion was made that psychologists studying highly complex human behaviour have to be rather satisfied with correlations in the r=0.10 to 0.20 range, and they were also very pleased with correlations in the 0.25-0.35 area (Meyer et al., 2001). It is commented by Mayer et al. (2000, p. 412) that the most appropriate new variables is noted to typically increase predictions, for example, of job performance between 1% and 4%'. It is also noted by Mayer and Salovey (1997, p. 17) that a 10% contribution of emotional intelligence towards life outcomes are to be considered as very large indeed' (Kerr et al, 2006).
In relation to the MSCEIT domain scores, the EEI score was found to be highly correlated in relation to supervisor ratings (r=0.50, p<0.001), and it is so that the REI score had exhibited no significant correlation (r=0.09). These results are likely to indicate that the EEI limb of the MSCEIT (Figure 1) are noted to accounts for all of the significance in the relationship between Total EI (TEI) and supervisor ratings. The r 2 value rises from 15.2 per cent for TEI at MSCEIT factor level 1, towards 25.2 per cent for the EEI at MSCEIT factor level 2. This is noted to suggest that whereas the TEI score can make a prediction of 15.2 per cent of the variation in supervisor ratings, it is noted that the EEI score alone can predict 25.2 per cent of the variation. This sort of an increase, together with the lack of any significant statistical relationship that was found between REI scores and supervisor ratings (REI: r=0.09), is noted to indicate that the REI value is not in possession of any significant predictive power in relation to supervisor ratings. Indeed, these findings suggest that when the REI score is added to the EEI score, it is so that the REI score dilutes the overall level of correlation with the dependent variable, hence, there was noted to be a reduction in the value of r 2 (Kerr et al, 2006).
The perceiving emotions branch is noted to make reference to capability to recognize the way that an individual and those around that individual are feeling and this is noted to involve the capacity so as to perceive and to express feelings (Mayer et al., 2002). It is so that perceiving emotions branch scores are said to have displayed a high positive correlation with managerial/supervisor ratings (r=0.43, p<0.001). The r 2 value is noted to indicate that supervisors' respective perceiving emotions branch scores are likely to account for 18.5 per cent of the variance in relation to supervisor ratings. These sorts of findings are noted to indicate that the individuals they manage look at supervisors that are adept at perceiving emotions as more effective in their supervisory role (Kerr et al, 2006).
Through the use of emotions branch of the MSCEIT, this is involved using emotions so as to enhance reasoning (Mayer et al., 2001). In essence, it is so that the branch aims to measure the way that a respondent's thoughts and other cognitive activities are informed by their experience of emotions. Through the use of emotions branch scores displayed a very highly significant positive correlation with supervisor ratings (r=0.52, p<0.001). Indeed, it is so that the regression coefficient for the use of a branch was more significant than all other branches (r 2=0.27; Table I). Consequently, it perceives emotions and also using emotions had the greatest overall impact in relation to supervisor ratings (Kerr et al, 2006).
The understandings in relation to emotions branch are likely to make an assessesment of an individual's ability so as to understand emotions and also to reason with emotional knowledge (Mayer and Salovey, 1997). In essence, very highly levels of emotional understanding that can permit the superiors comprehension of the advantages and disadvantages in relation to future actions (Mayer et al., 2002), and more effective self-management of emotions, and this is so when it comes to particularly negative emotions (Mischel and DeSmet, 2000). It is quite surprising that understanding emotions branch score did have a sort of non-significant positive correlation with supervisor ratings (r=0.25). It is so that these sorts of findings are noted to indicate that the level of supervisory emotional understanding, as being measured by the MSCEIT, did not have much bearing on employee perceptions in relation to supervisor effectiveness. Matthews et al. (2002) have essentially proposed that expert knowledge in relation to appropriate emotional behaviour is not likely to translate into the actual application of emotionally appropriate behaviour. It is distinguished by them that an emotionally inept scholar of emotion cannot be noted as being a sort of oxymoronic amalgam of expertise and action. It is so that this study made the suggestion that an individual's greater understanding of they way that emotions can change over time had a much greater emotional vocabulary which does not necessarily translate into superior emotional behaviour. Swift (2002) had found that an individual's increased awareness in relation to the potentially negative impact of their behaviour did have not a very much impact on the actual behaviour that they subsequently displayed. For this reason, it is eminent here that it might seems that an individual could identify the most socially effective behaviour to engage in but they might be unwilling or unable to pursue such a course of action (Kerr et al, 2006).
The managing of emotions branch can be looked at as being a very advanced emotional ability that is present in the ability-based model (Mayer et al., 2000), and hence, it has a greatest impact in relation to the management function (George, 2000). However, the actual results of the data analysis in relation to managing emotions branch scores are noted to be contrary to expectations. In carrying out a correlation analysis, there was an identification of no significant correlations between managing emotions branch scores and supervisor ratings (r=-0.12). The correlation, which is non-significant, was also in an opposite direction than expected. The managing emotions branch and corresponding tasks can be noted as being only factorial components of the MSCEIT so as to display a negative relationship with supervisor ratings. Through measuring an individual's capability so as to manage emotions is noted to be intrinsically much more difficult as opposed to other branches of the ability model. Earlier branches in relation to the MSCEIT are easier to assess as they have fewer parameters to consider (Mayer et al., 2004) and these are noted to be accompanied by an established body of related knowledge, like coding emotional expressions for perceiving emotions (Ekman and Davidson, 1994), the way that emotions impact on cognition for the use of emotions (Salovey and Birnbaum, 1989) and delineating emotional understanding for understanding emotions (Ortony et al., 1988). It is the belief of Mayer et al. (2004) that the test items that are in the MSCEIT can be operationalized in such a fashion that there would be very precise correct answers (Kerr et al, 2006).
It is acceded by Lopes et al. (2003) that the capability tests of EI cannot encompass all the skills which are noted to contribute to people's capacity in relation to emotional regulation. In essence, emotional regulation is noted to include both reactive and proactive coping that requires all sorts of skills, and these include analytical, creative, and practical competencies (Frijda, 1999). It is theorized that the managing emotions branch tasks are noted to be much closer to a self-reporting format as opposed to other section of the MSCEIT. It is so that an individual's ability to regulate their emotions is not truly tested. The individual is a large extent detached from the actual emotional stimulation that the situation is likely to invoke, thus, allowing the individual to answer questions from an 'emotional vacuum'. And also the Managing Emotions branch is noted to be very vulnerable to similar criticisms that are applied to other self-report tests, which is, self-reported ability and also the actual ability that are only minimally correlated in the realm of intelligence research (Davies et al., 1998; Mayer et al., 2000b).
In this investigation, the aim was to determine the relationship between supervisory EI as well as a rating of supervisor effectiveness. The total overall results in relation to the data analysis indicate that an individual's EI could well be a key determinant of effective managerial performance/leadership. Employee perceptions of supervisor effectiveness can be very strongly related to the EI of the supervisor. These results are noted to suggest that half of the MSCEIT scores could act as very significant large predictors of supervisor ratings (Mayer and Salovey, 1997; Mayer et al., 2000; Meyer et al., 2001. If this is so, then, these results support the inclusion and consideration of a manager's level of EI that is within the recruitment and selection process and the training and development process in relation to managerial personnel (Kerr et al, 2006).
The results of the analysis of data are noted to raise very interesting queries into the validity in relation to the understanding emotions and also managing emotions branch scores in organisational settings. These relationships are noted to be present between both of these branch scores and ratings of supervisor effectiveness is something that is not as expected. This could well indicate that a managers capability to understand and manage their emotions is not likely to play a key role in determining the way that they are viewed and rated by their subordinates. In relation to the understanding of emotions and managing emotions, it can well be that, as Matthews et al. (2002) have propose, the ability so as to understand emotions and the capability to act effectually on this understanding might be marginally related (Bliss, 2010).
The sort of generous, people-oriented attributes that are present in a manager that uses emotional intelligence are the sort of attributes that help attract and keep great colleagues and investors. In essence, manager likes these emotional and inspiring feeling and he or she has these traits that allowed his or her enthusiasm to spread. The visionary, daring, intuitive and unpredictable qualities are likely to help a manager to keep focused on the goal, to avoid short-term gratifications and also to achieve his goal. A manager likes to have a sort of open-mindedness that helps the company and himself so for developing and also retaining different kinds of people. Through the use of emotional intelligence, the manager can surrounded himself with the best talent he could find and also, he would take steps like decentralization of the power structure and to allow his talented staff to express themselves in their own way (Bliss, 2010).