Emotional Intelligence in Organizations: Bridging Research and Practice

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.

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.