Emotional Intelligence in Organizations: Bridging Research and Practice

Abstract

Although theory and research on emotional intelligence (EI) in the workplace has generated high expectations and promising findings, the gap between research and practice looms large. Several lines of inquiry point to the potential benefits of EI for leaders, teams, and organizations. Yet, assessing EI remains challenging, and research focusing on group and organizational levels of analysis is still scarce. In this review, I seek to bridge the gap between research and practice by considering a broader view of EI and discussing research findings with a focus on implications for assessment and training. In particular, I discuss strategies to enhance the impact of EI and leadership training, and to drive results through well-integrated organizational development initiatives.

Keywords

assessment emotion regulation emotional intelligence leadership organizational development training

The idea that emotional intelligence (EI) is crucial for managing people and working with others has taken hold in organizations and generated a large body of research. Yet, there is still a large gap between research findings and managers’ expectations about EI. Solid, evidence-based guidance for assessing and training emotional skills in organizations remains scarce. In this review, I seek to address this gap between research and practice, selectively exploring critical questions to outline implications for research, assessment, training, and leader development.

There are three main streams of research on EI (see Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005). The first is based on the ability model proposed by Mayer and Salovey (1997), which defines EI as a set of interrelated abilities at the interface of emotion and cognition, including perceiving, understanding, using, and managing emotions. In this stream of research, EI is measured using problem-based knowledge and ability tests requiring emotional information processing. The second stream, also inspired by the ability model, is based on subjective assessments of emotional abilities. The third stream is based on so-called mixed models of EI and also relies on subjective assessments. These models encompass perceived skills, facets of personality, motivation, and other aspects of adaptive functioning related to emotions.

The ability model has several advantages (Côté, 2014; Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008). It provides a relatively focused definition of EI, aligned with prevailing notions of intelligence. It offers a simple framework mapping individual differences in emotional skills along four dimensions. By distinguishing these from personality and other domains of intelligence, it focuses research and assessment on the unique contribution of emotional skills. For all these reasons, this review will focus largely on the first stream of research. Given the constraints of space, I will only briefly refer to the other streams, and then mainly to highlight potential applications. I will also emphasize consolidated findings from recent, quantitative research syntheses.

The Ability Model and Tests of EI: Research and Assessment

Research syntheses suggest that EI, measured as a set of abilities (henceforth “ability EI”), can be distinguished from personality and other domains of intelligence (Joseph & Newman, 2010; Kong, 2014). Ability EI is also positively related to supervisor ratings of performance (Joseph & Newman, 2010; O’Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack, Hawver, & Story, 2011). Controlling statistically for IQ and basic personality traits, this relationship remains significant only in contexts requiring emotional labor (Joseph & Newman, 2010). Such contexts include managerial and customer-facing service jobs, among others. Managers need to regulate their own and others’ feelings in order to motivate employees (Humphrey, Pollack, & Hawver, 2008). Similarly, customer service and healthcare staff need to manage their inner feelings and outward expression of emotion in order to please clients or help patients, and conform to social and organizational display rules. Thus, assessing and training emotional skills is likely to be most useful in these contexts. The effect of EI was modest even in contexts requiring emotional labor—explaining only 1.5% of variance in job performance after controlling for IQ and personality (Joseph & Newman, 2010). Nonetheless, weak effects should not be overlooked when considering important outcomes that are influenced by many different factors (Meyer et al., 2001). In competitive settings, a small advantage can make a big difference.

Joseph and Newman (2010) found support for a cascading model of EI, whereby perceiving and understanding emotion contribute to emotion regulation, which in turn contributes to job performance. This suggests that managing emotions should figure prominently in the assessment and training of emotional skills. This does not imply dismissing other emotional abilities. For example, emotion recognition can guide interpersonal interaction and decision-making, and also explains job performance (Elfenbein, Foo, White, Tan, & Aik, 2007).

Ability EI may also enhance other dimensions of adaptation and performance at work. For example, it has been linked to subjective well-being (Sánchez-Álvarez, Extremera, & Fernández-Berrocal, 2015) and to the use of adaptive coping strategies, such as problem-solving and the positive reinterpretation of events (Peña-Sarrionandia, Mikolajczak, & Gross, 2015). In turn, adaptive coping strategies are related to positive emotional experience and lower burnout (Shin et al., 2014). The experience of positive emotions at work is also associated with job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky, Warren, & de Chermont, 2003). Furthermore, ability EI has also been linked to healthy interpersonal relationships (see Mayer et al., 2008) and reduced proclivity for aggressive behavior (Peña-Sarrionandia et al., 2015).

Several authors have theorized that EI, and particularly the ability to manage and express emotions, is important for leadership (Ashkanasy & Humphrey, 2011; George, 2000). In particular, EI can enhance emotion-laden interactions between leaders and followers. Evidence shows that leaders’ trait positive affect is associated with both transformational leadership and leadership effectiveness, while trait negative affect is inversely related to these outcomes (Joseph, Dhanani, Shen, McHugh, & McCord, 2015). Yet, other authors have questioned whether leaders really need high EI to attain their goals (for an interesting debate, see Antonakis, Ashkanasy, & Dasborough, 2009). Such skepticism appears justified in light of a research synthesis indicating the relationship between widely used ability measures of EI and transformational leadership is weak, and practically negligible when leadership is evaluated by different raters (Harms & Credé, 2010). There are many ways to lead and motivate followers, and to create the conditions for people to do good work.

Conceptualization, Assessment, and Future Research

The contrast between the potential of EI suggested by theory, on the one hand, and the modest results reported in meta-analyses of ability EI, on the other, is striking. To make sense of this apparent contradiction, it is important to recognize that the ability model—and the performance measures based upon it—encompass a relatively narrow set of emotional skills. Moreover, measuring EI as an ability remains a big challenge (e.g., Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002).

Mayer, Caruso, and Salovey (2016) have argued research should focus on EI as an ability, rather than as a behavior. Behavior can be influenced by many factors beyond intelligence, including personality, motivation, and contextual factors. Nevertheless, actual behavior is likely to be of greater interest to managers than the reasoning behind it. And understanding emotionally intelligent behavior at work requires a broader view of EI. In particular, it is essential to consider personality dispositions, which are linked to emotional reactivity and regulation (Larsen, 2000) as well as job performance (Kaplan, Bradley, Luchman, & Haynes, 2009). Thus, some authors proposed conceptualizing EI as a multifaceted construct, discriminating temperament, information processing, emotion regulation, and acquired skills (Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2012).

Mayer et al. (2016) now view EI as a broad intelligence likely to overlap with other domains of intelligence, such as social intelligence, which also involve reasoning about emotions and the self. Depending on how variance related to scoring methods is modeled, ability EI may reveal substantial associations with other domains of general intelligence, including fluid and crystallized intelligence (e.g., Legree et al., 2014). The extent to which EI represents a cohesive domain of ability is still unclear, however. For example, nonverbal decoding skills involving different channels of communication (e.g., facial vs. vocal expressions of emotion) and different targets (individuals vs. groups) appear to be only weakly interrelated (Hall & Bernieri, 2001; Sanchez-Burks, Bartel, Rees, & Huy, 2016). This suggests emotion recognition, a dimension of EI, is a fragmented domain of ability. Interpersonal emotion regulation, an important subdimension of EI, might also encompass very different subskills, overlapping with social intelligence. Until such questions regarding the structure of EI are clarified, practitioners are advised to examine profiles of scores on a range of skills, rather than a single global EI score. Global scores are less informative and may mask differences across skills that are important for assessment and training purposes.

To recognize the challenges of assessing EI using ability measures, note that the most well-known tests of managing emotions are situational judgment tests (e.g., see MacCann & Roberts, 2008; Mayer et al., 2016). Test-takers rate the effectiveness of different responses to hypothetical situations about which they are provided limited information. Such tests evaluate general knowledge about the effectiveness of various strategies rather than the capacity to enact these appropriately, under stress, in real life (see Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999). They overlook automatic regulation strategies operating below conscious awareness (see Bargh & Williams, 2007). They neglect the ability to express emotions effectively, which is key to human communication and leadership (Côté & Hideg, 2011). They overlook much of the complexity of managing emotions in a social context (Cantor & Kihlstrom, 1987) and the dynamics of reciprocal influence.

In light of these limitations, it is important to explore new ways of assessing emotional skills and to develop new assessment instruments. Hopefully, these could also be used to provide formative feedback for training purposes. For example, the capacity to analyze emotionally challenging situations can be evaluated through in-depth interviews or discussions of prior experiences, critical incidents, and relevant cases. Advances in artificial intelligence and complex simulations may soon allow testing of interpersonal regulation and influence strategies tailored to specific work contexts and leadership roles, providing feedback along the way. Virtual reality may enable testing and training skills in realistic, immersive simulations that elicit a range of emotional reactions, thus tapping into “hot” information processing. Neuroscience is opening up new avenues for measuring emotional reactivity and regulation (Ochsner & Gross, 2008). A deeper understanding of emotion regulation may result from the combined use of neuroimaging, electroencephalography, event-related potentials, and peripheral psychophysiology, together with behavioral and subjective measures (Seeley, Garcia, & Mennin, 2015). Advances in nonverbal decoding software will further facilitate testing and training the ability to recognize and express emotions. As these technologies become more accessible, they will enable further exploration of EI.

The preceding analysis suggests several directions for future research. First, it is important to examine how EI interacts with other individual characteristics and contextual factors (including group and organizational factors) to predict workplace outcomes (see Côté, 2014). Second, a more fine-grained examination of skills and strategies is needed to map the contours of EI and related forms of intelligence. This mapping should inform assessment and training choices in different organizational contexts. For example, it would be useful to map the strategies and skills underlying emotion regulation at the intraindividual, interpersonal, group, and organizational levels of analysis, and clarify how these skills map onto emotional, social, and analytical intelligence. Third, further research is needed on the regulation of attention. Depending on their state of emotional activation, cognitive load, and salient goals, people may fail to attend to important emotional information—even if they were fully capable of processing such information in other circumstances. Fourth, causal effects and the impact of different approaches to the training of emotional skills should be examined through experimental studies. Fifth, cultural differences in EI deserve further attention. Finally, case studies can shed light both on successful organizational development efforts emphasizing EI and on the conditions required to induce emotionally intelligent behavior in organizations, at multiple levels of analysis.

Mixed Models and Perceived EI

Considering the limitations of existing EI tests and the role of personality in adaptive behavior, managers and practitioners may be interested in the measures used in other streams of EI research (as suggested by Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005). Stream 2 surveys measure global judgments of emotional abilities mapping onto the ability model. In some respects, subjective ratings may provide a more comprehensive view of (perceived) emotional abilities than existing EI tests. For example, in assessing their own ability to manage emotions, respondents are likely to draw upon their full range of emotional experiences across different contexts in life. In contrast, existing EI tests tap mostly into knowledge of emotion regulation. Stream 3 surveys, based on trait or mixed models of EI, encompass a broader range of characteristics that contribute to emotionally intelligent behavior (e.g., Petrides & Furnham, 2003). Some of these measures tap into perceived skills, personality traits, motivation, and other aspects of adaptive functioning.

Compared to ability EI, these two streams of EI research have yielded stronger relationships with job performance (Joseph & Newman, 2010; O’Boyle et al., 2011), transformational leadership (Harms & Credé, 2010), and subjective well-being (Sánchez-Álvarez et al., 2015). Additionally, multirater surveys can provide useful feedback for professional development and training purposes. Yet, these measures have important drawbacks (see also Matthews et al., 2002 and Mayer et al., 2008); Self-reports are prone to self-enhancement and socially desirable responding—as well as deliberate distortion in high-stakes assessment settings. People generally do not have a realistic perception of their own abilities (Mabe & West, 1982). Moreover, informants cannot accurately gauge emotional skills they cannot observe, such as inner emotion regulation.

Research based on these two streams tends to confound perceived skills, dispositions, and outcomes. For example, someone who is generally cheerful and gets along with others is presumed to have good social and emotional regulation skills. This confounds cause and effect. Moreover, when many facets are lumped into a single EI score, we cannot tell what facets contribute to a particular outcome. A meta-analysis by Joseph, Jin, Newman, and O’Boyle (2015) underscores these concerns. In particular, it suggests that mixed models of EI simply repackage existing constructs, insofar as the relationship between mixed-model EI and job performance could be explained by the combined effects of ability EI, personality, and perceived efficacy.

EI Training and Leadership Development

Can EI competencies be trained? Yes. A few rigorous, experimental studies of emotional skills training programs for adults have yielded positive effects on well-being, health, social relationships, and employability (e.g., Nelis et al., 2011). Further evidence that emotional competencies can be trained comes from evaluations of stress management training (Richardson & Rothstein, 2008), positive psychology interventions (Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009), sensitivity and self-awareness training (Faith, Wong, & Carpenter, 1995), treatments of anger and other emotion-related problems in psychotherapy and counseling (Del Vecchio & O’Leary, 2004), and school-based programs of social and emotional learning (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011). In most of these areas, research syntheses point to robust positive results.

Is training EI a good investment for organizations? That depends. The benefits of emotional skills may be indirect and depend on the organizational context (Côté, 2014). Robust evidence that training emotional competencies improves job performance is still lacking. It may be relatively easy to develop knowledge and skills in some areas, such as recognizing basic facial expressions of emotion. However, developing true expertise in any realm requires extensive practice and feedback. It may be particularly difficult to improve emotion regulation if this entails changing habitual patterns of emotional experience and deeply engraved emotional reactions (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999). Moreover, if EI proves to be a broad and fragmented domain of intelligence, practicing all the relevant skills in a formal training environment might simply take too long. This is a major concern for leader development programs targeting busy managers.

To address these concerns, we must consider ways to multiply the impact of EI training. Several possible solutions are suggested by the research findings discussed above. First, training should emphasize managing and expressing emotions, because these abilities are directly linked to leadership, communication, and influence processes (Humphrey et al., 2008), as well as job performance (Joseph & Newman, 2010). Second, training should be tailored to the specific developmental needs of individuals or groups, focusing on the knowledge and skills most relevant to their stage of career development, realm of work, and current challenges. Online resources can help participants to obtain specific guidance just when they need it. Third, participants can be encouraged and trained to apply the analytical skills they already possess to emotionally challenging situations at work. Intelligent analysis is crucial for sound decision-making in these situations. It might also help leaders to address complex challenges at the group and organizational levels more effectively than intensive training of purely emotional skills.

Fourth, leaders can develop EI as they work on important projects. In particular, organizational challenges that involve innovation and change, and which call for collective leadership, provide a fertile setting for developing EI and the capacity to influence others (see General Electric’s Work-Out initiative; Ulrich, Kerr, & Ashkenas, 2002). For example, managers can hone their ability to manage their own and others’ emotions as they debate ideas with peers, deal with the emotional ups and downs of a difficult project, strive to mobilize support for a new initiative, and deal with resistance to change. Group coaching can be used to facilitate high-impact action learning. In this setting, managers contribute to short-term organizational results as they develop EI and leadership skills.

Fifth, EI and leadership training should be conceived as part of an integrated organizational development initiative. Developing individual skills may be a waste of time if the group and organizational contexts do not support the desired behavioral change. For example, training people to collaborate and foster a positive team spirit may lead nowhere if incentives reward individual achievement or cut-throat competition, and team leaders fail to establish or model constructive rules of engagement. Efforts to develop collective EI and leadership will be most effective if they are aligned with organizational strategy, structure, systems, and culture (Nadler, 1998). Collective action and change call for psychological alignment based on a shared vision and commitment (see Beer, 2009), and meaningful involvement at all levels (e.g., Ulrich et al., 2002). For all these reasons, mobilizing leaders to address key organizational challenges and simultaneously helping them hone EI and other skills, as part of an integrated organizational development initiative, is a powerful way to enhance collective leadership capacity.

Although theory and research on EI have generally focused on individual differences, EI can also be studied at the group and organizational levels of analysis (Ashkanasy & Humphrey, 2011; Huy, 1999; Menges, 2012). For example, the explicit and implicit norms guiding the way people manage emotions and conflict in teams are thought to contribute to team EI, influencing information sharing, collaboration, and performance (Druskat & Wolff, 2001). Similarly, organizational culture may sustain a healthy emotional climate and emotionally intelligent behavior in the workplace (Barsade & O’Neill, 2014). Organizational EI can be enhanced through employee selection, promotion, and training (human resource management) as well as through other organizational procedures (Menges, 2012). Depending on the issues at stake, intervening at the organizational level to create favorable conditions for emotionally intelligent behavior might prove more effective than intervening at the individual level of analysis by developing employees’ emotional skills, for example.

The proponents of EI theory originally focused on individual differences in a narrow set of abilities, distinct from personality and IQ, and measured using performance tests. Yet, interest in EI in organizations has gained a life of its own. Managers tend to be more interested in changing behavior and driving organizational results than in fine distinctions between various mental abilities. Addressing their concerns leads us to a broader view of EI, encompassing individual, group, and organizational levels of analysis; as well as abilities, personality, and motivational factors. In this review, I explored this broader view of EI to translate research findings into recommendations for practice, while recognizing that a focus on narrower constructs, including specific emotional abilities and subskills, is needed to advance scientific knowledge.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Antonakis

Ashkanasy

N. M.

Dasborough

M. T.

(2009). Does leadership need emotional intelligence? The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 247–261. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.01.006

Ashkanasy

N. M.

Daus

C. S.

(2005). Rumors of the death of emotional intelligence in organizational behavior are vastly exaggerated. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 441–452. doi:10.1002/job.320

Ashkanasy

Humphrey

R. H.

(2011). A multi-level view of leadership and emotion: Leading with emotional labor. In Bryman

Collinson

Grint

Jackson

Uhl-Bien

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of leaderhip (pp. 365–379). London, UK: Sage.

Bargh

J. A.

Williams

L. E.

(2007). The nonconscious regulation of emotion. In Gross

J. J.

(Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 429–445). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Barsade

S. G.

O’Neill

O. A.

(2014). What’s love got to do with it? A longitudinal study of the culture of companionate love and employee and client outcomes in the long-term care setting. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59, 551–598. doi:10.1177/0001839214538636

Beer

(2009). High commitment, high performance: How to build a resilient organization for sustained advantage. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cantor

Kihlstrom

J. F.

(1987). Personality and social intelligence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Côté

(2014). Emotional intelligence in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 459–488. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413–091233

Côté

Hideg

(2011). The ability to influence others via emotion displays: A new dimension of emotional intelligence. Organizational Psychology Review, 1, 53–71. doi:10.1177/2041386610379257

10.

Del Vecchio

O’Leary

K. D.

(2004). Effectiveness of anger treatments for specific anger problems: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 24, 15–34. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2003.09.006

11.

Druskat

V. U.

Wolff

S. B.

(2001). Building the emotional intelligence of groups. Harvard Business Review, 79(3), 80–90.

12.

Durlak

J. A.

Weissberg

R. P.

Dymnicki

A. B.

Taylor

R. D.

Schellinger

K. B.

(2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405–432. doi:10.1111/j.1467–8624.2010.01564.x

13.

Elfenbein

H. A.

Foo

M. D.

White

J. B.

Tan

H. H.

Aik

V. C.

(2007). Reading your counterpart: The benefit of emotion recognition accuracy for effectiveness in negotiation. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 31, 205–223. doi:10.1007/s10919–007–0033–7

14.

Faith

M. S.

Wong

F. Y.

Carpenter

K. M.

(1995). Group sensitivity training: Update, meta-analysis, and recommendations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 390–399. doi:10.1037/0022–0167.42.3.390

15.

George

J. M.

(2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53, 1027–1055. doi:10.1177/0018726700538001

16.

Hall

J. A.

Bernieri

F. J.

(2001). Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

17.

Harms

P. D.

Credé

(2010). Emotional intelligence and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17, 5–17. doi:10.1177/1548051809350894

18.

Humphrey

R. H.

Pollack

J. M.

Hawver

T. H.

(2008). Leading with emotional labor. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 151–168. doi:10.1108/02683940810850790

19.

Huy

Q. N.

(1999). Emotional capability, emotional intelligence, and radical change. Academy of Management Review, 24, 325–345. doi:10.5465/amr.1999.1893939

20.

Joseph

D. L.

Dhanani

L. Y.

Shen

McHugh

B. C.

McCord

M. A.

(2015). Is a happy leader a good leader? A meta-analytic investigation of leader trait affect and leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 557–576. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.04.001

21.

Joseph

D. L.

Jin

Newman

D. A.

O’Boyle

E. H.

(2015). Why does self-reported emotional intelligence predict job performance? A meta-analytic investigation of mixed EI. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 298–342. doi:10.1037/a0037681

22.

Joseph

D. L.

Newman

D. A.

(2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 54–78. doi:10.1037/a0017286

23.

Kaplan

Bradley

J. C.

Luchman

J. N.

Haynes

(2009). On the role of positive and negative affectivity in job performance: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 162–176. doi:10.1037/a0013115

24.

Kong

D. T.

(2014). Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT/MEIS) and overall, verbal, and nonverbal intelligence: Meta-analytic evidence and critical contingencies. Personality and Individual Differences, 66, 171–175. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.03.028

25.

Larsen

R. J.

(2000). Toward a science of mood regulation. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 129–141. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1103_01

26.

Legree

P. J.

Psotka

Robbins

Roberts

R. D.

Putka

D. J.

Mullins

H. M.

(2014). Profile similarity metrics as an alternate framework to score rating-based tests: MSCEIT reanalyses. Intelligence, 47, 159–174. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2014.09.005

27.

Mabe

P. A.

West

S. G.

(1982). Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 280–296. doi:10.1037/0021–9010.67.3.280

28.

MacCann

Roberts

R. D.

(2008). New paradigms for assessing emotional intelligence: Theory and data. Emotion, 8, 540–551. doi:10.1037/a0012746

29.

Matthews

Zeidner

Roberts

R. D.

(2002). Emotional intelligence: Science and myth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

30.

Matthews

Zeidner

Roberts

R. D.

(2012). Emotional intelligence: A promise unfulfilled? Japanese Psychological Research, 54, 105–127. doi:10.1111/j.1468–5884.2011.00502.x

31.

Mayer

J. D.

Caruso

D. R.

Salovey

(2016). The Ability Model of Emotional Intelligence: Principles and Updates. Emotion Review, 8 (4), 290–300.

32.

Mayer

J. D.

Roberts

R. D.

Barsade

S. G.

(2008). Human abilities: Emotional intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 507–536. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093646

33.

Mayer

J. D.

Salovey

(1997). What is emotional intelligence? In Salovey

Sluyter

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

34.

Menges

J. I.

(2012). Organizational emotional intelligence: Theoretical foundations and practical implications. In Ashkanasy

N. M.

Härtel

C. E. J.

Zerbe

W. J.

(Eds.), Research on emotion in organizations: Vol. 8. Experiencing and managing emotions in the workplace (pp. 355–373). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

35.

Metcalfe

Mischel

(1999). A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review, 106, 3–19. doi:10.1037/0033–295x.106.1.3

36.

Meyer

G. J.

Finn

S. E.

Eyde

L. D.

Kay

G. G.

Moreland

L. K.

Dies

R. R.

(2001). Psychological testing and psychological assessment: A review of evidence and issues. American Psychologist, 56, 128–165. doi:10.1037/0003–066x.56.2.128

37.

Nadler

D. A.

(1998). Champions of change: How CEOs and their companies are mastering the skills of radical change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

38.

Nelis

Kotsou

Quoidbach

Hansenne

Weytens

Dupuis

Mikolajczak

(2011). Increasing emotional competence improves psychological and physical well-being, social relationships, and employability. Emotion, 11, 354–366. doi:10.1037/a0021554

39.

O’Boyle

E. H.

Jr. Humphrey

R. H.

Pollack

J. M.

Hawver

T. H.

Story

P. A.

(2011). The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 788–818. doi:10.1002/job.714

40.

Ochsner

K. N.

Gross

J. J.

(2008). Cognitive emotion regulation: Insights from social cognitive and affective neuroscience. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 153–158. doi:10.1111/j.1467–8721.2008.00566.x

41.

Peña-Sarrionandia

Mikolajczak

Gross

J. J.

(2015). Integrating emotion regulation and emotional intelligence traditions: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 160–186. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00160

42.

Petrides

K. V.

Furnham

(2003). Trait emotional intelligence: Behavioural validation in two studies of emotion recognition and reactivity to mood induction. European Journal of Personality, 17, 39–57. doi:10.1002/per.466

43.

Richardson

K. M.

Rothstein

H. R.

(2008). Effects of occupational stress management intervention programs: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13, 69–93. doi:10.1037/1076–8998.13.1.69

44.

Sánchez-Álvarez

Extremera

Fernández-Berrocal

(2015). The relation between emotional intelligence and subjective well-being: A meta-analytic investigation. The Journal of Positive Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/17439760.2015.1058968

45.

Sanchez-Burks

Bartel

C. A.

Rees

Huy

(2016). Assessing collective affect recognition via the Emotional Aperture Measure. Cognition & Emotion, 30, 117–133. doi:10.1080/02699931.2015.1015968

46.

Seeley

S. H.

Garcia

Mennin

D. S.

(2015). Recent advances in laboratory assessment of emotion regulation. Current Opinion in Psychology, 3, 58–63. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.02.009

47.

Shin

Park

Y. M.

Ying

J. Y.

Kim

Noh

Min

(2014). Relationships between coping strategies and burnout symptoms: A meta-analytic approach. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 45, 44–56. doi:10.1037/a0035220

48.

Sin

N. L.

Lyubomirsky

(2009). Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressive symptoms with positive psychology interventions: A practice-friendly meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65, 467–487. doi:10.1002/jclp.20593

49.

Thoresen

C. J.

Kaplan

S. A.

Barsky

A. P.

Warren

C. R.

de Chermont

(2003). The affective underpinnings of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytic review and integration. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 914–945. doi:10.1037/0033–2909.129.6.914

50.

Ulrich

Kerr

Ashkenas

(2002). The GE Work-Out: How to implement GE’s revolutionary method for busting bureaucracy and attacking organizational problems—fast! New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.