Ei n Work Performance

8/8/2019 Ei n Work Performance

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ei-n-work-performance 1/28

This paper examines how emotional intelligence and cog-nitive intelligence are associated with job performance.We develop and test a compensatory model that positsthat the association between emotional intelligence andjob performance becomes more positive as cognitiveintelligence decreases. We report the results of a study inwhich employees completed tests of emotional intelli-

gence and cognitive intelligence, and their task perfor-mance and organizational citizenship behavior wereassessed by their supervisors. Hypotheses from themodel were supported for task performance and organi-zational citizenship behavior directed at the organization,but not for organizational citizenship behavior directed atindividuals. We discuss the theoretical implications andmanagerial ramifications of our model and findings.•

One of the most provocative ideas to emerge from recentdiscussions of management concerns the possibility that anew form of intelligence pertaining to emotions is related tothe performance of organization members (Goleman, 1998;Caruso and Salovey, 2004). According to this idea, some

organization members may perform effectively because theyhave high emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence is aset of abilities that includes the abilities to perceive emotionsin the self and in others, use emotions to facilitate perfor-mance, understand emotions and emotional knowledge, andregulate emotions in the self and in others (Mayer andSalovey, 1997). The concept of emotional intelligence hashad an unusually important impact on managerial practice(Ashkanasy and Daus, 2002). Several organizations haveincorporated emotional intelligence into their employee devel-opment programs (Fast Company, 2000), and some businessschools have added the training of emotional competenciesto their curriculums (Boyatzis, Stubbs, and Taylor, 2002). Theappeal of emotional intelligence may reflect the idea that suc-

cess is not simply determined by well-known abilities, suchas verbal and quantitative abilities, but also by abilities per-taining to emotions.

Despite the popular interest, there is a paucity of studies onhow emotional intelligence is related to job performance. Asa result, knowledge of whether emotional intelligence isrelated to job performance and of the mechanisms that mayunderlie such a relation is limited. This uncertainty has con-tributed, in part, to criticisms of the scientific status of emo-tional intelligence in organizational research (Becker, 2003;Landy, 2005; Locke, 2005). Barrett and his colleagues (2001:1) referred to emotional intelligence as “the Madison Avenueapproach to science and professional practice,” implying that

the popularity of emotional intelligence rests on crafty adver-tising as opposed to rigorous scientific evidence.

The results of past research on emotional intelligence and jobperformance—defined as the degree to which an individualhelps the organization reach its goals (Motowidlo, Borman,and Schmit, 1997)—are mixed. Some studies suggest thatemotional intelligence and job performance are positivelyrelated. These studies found that emotional intelligence pre-dicts the performance of undergraduate students on a singletask (Lam and Kirby, 2002), the classroom performance of

© 2006 by Johnson Graduate School,Cornell University.0001-8392/06/5101-0001/$3.00.

•

We thank Brian Golden, Gary Latham,

Geoffrey Leonardelli, Julie McCarthy, BillMcEvily, Sridhar Moorthy, DebbieMoskowitz, Maria Rotundo, Tim Rowley,Alan Saks, Soo Min Toh, Associate EditorMartin Kilduff, and the three anonymousreviewers for their advice and insightfuland constructive comments on earlierversions of this article. We also thankSonya Tomas and Anita Wu for theirassistance with the data collection. Thisresearch was supported by a researchgrant from the Social Sciences andHumanities Research Council of Canadato the first author.

Emotional Intelligence,Cognitive Intelligence,and Job Performance

Stéphane CôtéChristopher T. H.

MinersUniversity of Toronto

1/ Administrative Science Quarterly, 51 (2006): 1–28

#2798-ASQ V51 N1-Mar 2006—file: 01-cote



managers and professionals (Sue-Chan and Latham, 2004),the collection performance of account officers (Bachman etal., 2000), sales performance (Wong, Law, and Wong, 2004),and supervisory ratings of job performance (Slaski andCartwright, 2002; Law, Wong, and Song, 2004). Anotherstudy found that the emotional intelligence of teams of stu-dents predicts the performance of these teams at the initial

stages of a project (Jordan et al., 2002).

Other studies have suggested that there is no relation or aninconsistent relation between emotional intelligence and jobperformance. These studies have found no relation or aninconsistent relation between emotional intelligence and per-formance on particular tasks (Austin, 2004; Day and Carroll,2004), academic performance (Petrides, Frederickson, andFurnham, 2004), and supervisory ratings of job performance(Sosik and Megerian, 1999; Janovics and Christiansen, 2001).One study found that the emotional intelligence of teamswas related to one of six measures of team performance(Feyerherm and Rice, 2002), and a study of MBA studentsfound that the emotional intelligence of groups was unrelated

to group performance (Rapisarda, 2002).The preceding review reveals a puzzling set of results thatmay arise from an emphasis on a potential linear effect ofemotional intelligence on job performance. Researchers havebuilt the case for emotional intelligence, in part, by arguingthat it explains variance in job performance that is notexplained by extant constructs such as cognitive intelligence(Mayer and Salovey, 1997; Goleman, 1998; Mayer, Salovey,and Caruso, 2000). This argument proposes, for instance,that emotional intelligence and cognitive intelligence makeindependent and complementary linear contributions to jobperformance. Linear effect models, however, may be overlysimplistic and incomplete. The large variation across studies

led the authors of a meta-analysis of emotional intelligenceand workplace performance to suggest that moderating vari-ables exist (Van Rooy and Viswesvaran, 2004). Argumentsthat abilities may compensate for one another also point tomoderation. Carroll (1993) suggested that an individual whois low on an ability that is related to performance can com-pensate for that weakness by being high on a different abilitythat is also related to performance. Likewise, Viswesvaranand Ones (2002) hinted that some individual difference char-acteristics may compensate for low cognitive intelligence.Such compensatory effects form the basis of interactivemodels so that, for example, a specific ability predicts perfor-mance more strongly in a person who lacks other abilitiesthan in a person who has other abilities that are related to

performance.Compensatory effects may explain why emotional intelli-gence predicted job performance in some past studies butnot in others. If compensatory effects exist, emotional intelli-gence should predict job performance only some of the time,depending on the other abilities that individuals possess.Researchers have not considered compensatory effects inmodels of emotional intelligence and job performance. Weintroduce compensatory effects to the study of emotionalintelligence by developing and testing a compensatory model

2/ ASQ, March 2006




of how emotional intelligence and cognitive intelligence arejointly associated with job performance.

A COMPENSATORY MODEL OF EMOTIONALINTELLIGENCE, COGNITIVE INTELLIGENCE, AND JOBPERFORMANCE

We propose a compensatory model in which cognitive intelli-gence moderates the association between emotional intelli-gence and job performance, so that the association becomesmore positive as cognitive intelligence decreases. In ourmodel, emotional intelligence is conceptualized as a set ofabilities pertaining to emotions. Mayer and Salovey (1997)identified four subsets of abilities subsumed by emotionalintelligence: the abilities to perceive emotions, use emotionsto facilitate performance, understand emotions and emotionalknowledge, and regulate emotions. Davies, Stankov, andRoberts (1998) proposed a similar model, but we focus onMayer and Salovey’s (1997) model because it was the onlymodel that was supported by a confirmatory factor analysis(Mayer, Caruso, and Salovey, 2000) and for which a measure

with desirable psychometric properties was available (Mayer,Salovey, and Caruso, 2002) when we initiated our study. Con-sistent with Wong and Law’s (2002) reasoning, we treatemotional intelligence as a latent multidimensional construct(Law, Wong, and Mobley, 1998) and therefore focus on thebroad construct of emotional intelligence rather than on eachof its dimensions.

Emotional Intelligence as an Intelligence

In our compensatory model, emotional intelligence is concep-tualized as a type of intelligence. There is a debate about theuse of the term intelligence in emotional intelligence (Roberts, Zeidner, and Matthews, 2001; Becker, 2003; Brody,2004). We use the term emotional intelligence for two rea-sons. First, the definition of emotional intelligence is consis-tent with extant definitions of intelligence. Schmidt andHunter (2000: 3) defined intelligence as the “ability to graspand reason correctly with abstractions (concepts) and solveproblems.” After defining intelligence, however, Schmidt andHunter (2000) equated the terms intelligence and generalintelligence on the basis of precedent and used the termsinterchangeably. We disagree with Schmidt and Hunter(2000) because their definition of intelligence can be appliedto specific content domains such as the domain of emotionand, therefore, intelligence does not always correspond togeneral intelligence. We use Schmidt and Hunter’s (2000)definition of intelligence and qualify the term intelligence to

indicate the content domain of interest. Hence, general intel-ligence is the general ability to reason correctly with abstrac-tions (concepts) and solve problems. Emotional intelligencecan be conceptualized as the ability to grasp and reason cor-rectly with emotional abstractions (emotional concepts) andsolve emotional problems.

Second, the construct of emotional intelligence meets theconceptual, correlational, and developmental criteria of anintelligence proposed by Mayer, Caruso, and Salovey (2000),based on their review of the research on intelligence. To

3/ ASQ, March 2006

Emotional Intelligence




meet the conceptual criterion of an intelligence, a constructmust reflect abilities rather than tendencies to act in certainways (Carroll, 1993). This criterion is based on an importantdistinction between abilities and personality traits. Abilitiesreflect “the possible variations over individuals in the liminal[threshold] levels of task difficulty .|.|. at which, on any givenoccasion in which all conditions appear to be favorable, indi-

viduals perform successfully on a defined class of tasks”(Carroll, 1993: 8). As such, abilities represent what a personcan do in specific situations—situations in which conditionsare favorable. By contrast, personality traits represent what aperson typically does across situations and over time(McCrae and John, 1992). Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) modelof emotional intelligence focuses strictly on abilities andhence satisfies the conceptual criterion of an intelligence.Mixed models of emotional intelligence include abilities, per-sonality traits, and various other concepts (Bar-On, 2001; Tett,Fox, and Wang, 2005). For example, Bar-On’s (2001) modelincludes, among other characteristics, social responsibilityand optimism, which are rarely considered to be abilities.Mixed models include concepts that are outside the defini-tion of abilities and hence do not meet the conceptual criteri-on of an intelligence.

To meet the correlational criterion of an intelligence (Carroll,1993; Neisser et al., 1996), a construct must correlate withyet be different from other intelligences. Correlationsbetween emotional intelligence and cognitive and verbal intel-ligence have been found to range from .05 (Ciarrochi, Chan,and Caputi, 2000) to .45 (Schulte, Ree, and Carretta, 2004).These findings suggest that as much as 20 percent of emo-tional intelligence overlaps with other intelligences and,therefore, over 80 percent of emotional intelligence is sepa-rate from other intelligences. These findings reveal that emo-tional intelligence meets the correlational criterion of an intel-

ligence.

To meet the developmental criterion of an intelligence, a con-struct must have the potential to improve over time. Empiri-cal evidence accords an important role to experience andlearning in the development of emotional intelligence. Thereis considerable evidence that the familial environment affectschildren’s development of emotional abilities (Saarni, 1999).There is also evidence that individuals can be trained to rec-ognize emotions in photographs of facial expressions (Elfen-bein, 2006) and to use better strategies to manage theiremotions (Totterdell and Parkinson, 1999). Normative datashowing that older individuals obtain higher emotional intelli-gence test scores than younger individuals (Mayer et al.,

2003) also suggest that emotional intelligence meets thedevelopmental criterion of an intelligence.

Emotional Intelligence and Cognitive Intelligence

Emotional intelligence and cognitive intelligence are relatedyet distinct constructs in our compensatory model. In thedominant model of mental abilities, the different abilities arestructured hierarchically (Carroll, 1993). General intelligence(or g) is “the general efficacy of intellectual processes” (Ack-erman, Beier, and Boyle, 2005: 32) and is at the apex. Gener-

4/ ASQ, March 2006




knowledge of facts, procedures, and rules relevant to thetechnical core of the job (Motowidlo, Borman, and Schmit,1997). Cognitive intelligence enhances OCB through theknowledge of facts, procedures, and rules relevant to effec-tive helping, cooperating, and endorsing the organization(Motowidlo, Borman, and Schmit, 1997).

Individuals with low cognitive intelligence may reap relativelylarge returns from high emotional intelligence because theytend to exhibit low job performance in most, if not all jobs.When job performance is low, the room for correction andimprovement is large. For example, a salesperson who failsto hold the interest of potential customers has high potentialfor reducing mistakes in the future. Job performance that isnot attained through cognitive intelligence may be attainedthrough emotional intelligence via multiple complementarymechanisms. The first mechanism concerns expertise atidentifying and understanding the emotions of other individu-als. In most, if not all jobs, organization members interactwith supervisors, coworkers, support staff, and outsiderssuch as customers, clients, or patients. These individuals

publicly display their emotions through facial, vocal, and bodi-ly signals that provide important information about theirgoals, attitudes, and intentions (Rafaeli and Sutton, 1987;Sutton, 1991). This information may, in turn, be convertedinto high task performance by individuals with high emotionalintelligence and low cognitive intelligence. An employee whoaccurately detects colleagues’ emotions may facilitate coordi-nation and interpersonal functioning that may, in turn,enhance task performance (Law, Wong, and Song, 2004).Information about other people’s goals, attitudes, and inten-tions may also be converted into frequent OCB by individualswith high emotional intelligence and low cognitive intelli-gence. For example, these individuals can detect other indi-viduals’ sadness and anxiety, which often signal a need for

assistance (Eisenberg, 2000), and therefore they may exhibitfrequent OCB.

A second mechanism by which emotional intelligence mayenhance the job performance of individuals with low cogni-tive intelligence concerns how regulating emotion influencesthe quality of social relationships. Employees who generateand display genuine emotions elicit more favorable reactionsthan employees who choose to display fake emotions(Grandey, 2003; Grandey et al., 2005). Employees who dis-play genuine concern about their coworkers’ problems shouldbuild stronger relationships than employees whose concernseems less genuine. Individuals with high emotional intelli-gence and low cognitive intelligence may employ their abili-

ties to manage emotions to develop good social relationships(Wong and Law, 2002) that may in turn enhance task perfor-mance via advice and social support (Sparrowe et al., 2001;Pearce and Randel, 2004). Good social relationships may alsocompel employees to engage in OCB frequently to benefitclose colleagues.

A third mechanism by which emotional intelligence mayenhance the job performance of individuals with low cogni-tive intelligence concerns the effects of emotions on howpeople think and act (Loewenstein and Lerner, 2003; Seo,

6/ ASQ, March 2006




cent); legal (1, or 1 percent); management (37, or 21 per-cent); office and administrative support (41, or 23 percent);personal care and service (1, or 1 percent); and protectiveservice (3, or 2 percent). We did not code the job of one per-son who did not answer the questions concerning occupationand work tasks.

We recruited participants via an e-mail message sent toapproximately 750 managerial, administrative, and profession-al staff. The message invited full-time employees of the uni-versity who had been working in their job under the samesupervisor for at least three months to participate in a studyof important work outcomes. Before taking part in the study,participants obtained a verbal agreement from their supervi-sors that they would provide ratings of job performance, tomaximize the response rate. To maximize the rate ofresponse to our e-mail invitation, we stressed the confiden-tiality of the information provided (Fink, 1995). We empha-sized the importance of research to the status of the organi-zation, because individuals are motivated to enhance thestatus of the groups to which they belong (Ellemers, Wilke,

and van Knippenberg, 1993). We provided a monetary incen-tive (Fink, 1995). Finally, we indicated that participants wouldreceive a report on the results. This technique is effectivebecause people like to learn about their own behavior andthat of their colleagues (Alreck and Settle, 2004).

We obtained a response rate of 23 percent, which is a con-servative estimate calculated with the assumption that eachperson received, opened, and read the e-mail invitation. Thisresponse rate is similar to the typical response rate formailed organizational surveys (Fink, 1995; Alreck and Settle,2004). To ascertain the degree of similarity between our sam-ple and the entire managerial, administrative, and profession-al workforce of the organization, we compared their demo-

graphic characteristics. The sample did not differ from theorganization’s workforce with respect to the percentage ofwomen [67 percent in our sample compared with 62 percentin the organization, t(174) = 1.44, p = .15], tenure in the orga-nization [116 months in our sample compared with 126months in the organization, t(173) = 1.25, p = .21], the per-centage of individuals with a Bachelor-level education [59 per-cent in our sample compared with 66 percent in the organiza-tion, t(174) = 1.84, p = .07], and the percentage of individualswith a Ph.D.-level education [2 percent in our sample com-pared with 2 percent in the organization, t(174) = .30, p =.76]. The percentage of individuals with a Master’s-level edu-cation was smaller in our sample (10 percent) than in theorganization (22 percent) [t(174) = 5.18, p < .001]. The aver-

age age in our sample was slightly younger than in the orga-nization’s workforce [41 in our sample compared with 43 inthe organization, t(171) = 3.05, p < .01].

There were two stages of data collection. In the first stage,we scheduled interested potential participants for a 100-minute session held in a laboratory room. A total of 205 indi-viduals completed the first stage. No more than five partici-pants were scheduled for each session. During this session,participants provided informed consent and completed aseries of tests and questionnaires, including tests of emo-

8/ ASQ, March 2006




tional intelligence and cognitive intelligence. We administeredthe test of cognitive intelligence first because it requires astandard procedure. The order in which the other tests andquestionnaires were administered was randomly assignedand counterbalanced to alleviate fatigue and carryover effects(Bickart, 1993). Participants completed all tests and question-naires on a computer except for the test of cognitive intelli-

gence, which they completed using paper and pencil. Partici-pants were compensated $75 CAD.

In the second stage of data collection, we contacted thesupervisor of each participant via e-mail within one week ofthe participant’s completing the laboratory session. Supervi-sors provided informed consent and completed measures ofparticipants’ job performance on a questionnaire on the Inter-net. Supervisors who preferred to complete the question-naire on paper received a paper copy along with a self-addressed stamped envelope. Supervisors werecompensated $25 CAD. Once supervisors completed the jobperformance measures, the participants received an addition-al $25 CAD, for a total of $100 CAD. We obtained assess-

ments of job performance for 175, or 85 percent, of the 205employees. Some of the employees were rated by the samesupervisor. The 175 assessments were provided by 106supervisors. The 175 participants for whom measures of jobperformance were available are the focus of the study.

Measures

Emotional intelligence. We administered the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT; Mayer, Salovey,and Caruso, 2002), a 141-item ability test of emotional intelli-gence. The MSCEIT contains tasks that ask respondents toidentify emotions in photographs of faces and in images andlandscapes, compare different emotions to different sensa-tions such as colors, indicate how emotions influence think-ing and reasoning, assemble emotions into complex feelings,identify how emotions transition from one to another, andrate the effectiveness of different emotion regulation strate-gies in both intrapersonal and interpersonal contexts. TheMSCEIT is scored by the test publisher using a copyrightedscoring system. Respondents receive credit to the extentthat their answers match the answers provided by expertswho are members of the International Society for Researchon Emotion. Total scores are converted to interpretable nor-malized standard scores with a mean of 100 and a standarddeviation of 15. Analyses repeated using a different scoringsystem that involves comparing respondents’ answers tothose of a large normative sample of lay people from around

the world produced virtually the same results. For the sake ofbrevity, we report only the results with the expert scoringsystem.

We chose the MSCEIT for several reasons. The MSCEIT isan ability test in which respondents are presented with emo-tional problems and asked to choose the best answer amonga set of options (Mayer, Caruso, and Salovey, 2000). The abili-ty test approach to measuring emotional intelligence address-es some of the serious limitations of the competing self-report and peer-report approaches. The self-report approach,

9/ ASQ, March 2006





standard form of Raven’s Progressive Matrices and theWeschler Adult Intelligence Scale. Given the long duration ofour study, a longer test may have resulted in a decline in thequality of the data due to fatigue.

Job performance. We administered a five-item scale adaptedfrom McCarthy and Goffin (2001) to assess task perfor-

mance. Supervisors rated employees’ (1) effectiveness in dis-playing job knowledge and skill, (2) effectiveness in verbaland written communication, (3) effectiveness in taking chargewhen required, (4) degree to which they set high standardsand strive to meet them, and (5) quickness in learning, onscales of 1, “strongly below average,” to 7, “strongly aboveaverage.”

We administered a 16-item scale from Lee and Allen (2002)to assess organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Supervi-sors indicated the degree to which employees engaged in 16behaviors at work on scales of 1, “not at all,” to 5, “verymuch.” Eight items assessed OCB directed at individuals(OCBI; e.g., “help others who have been absent”), and eight

items assessed OCB directed at the organization (OCBO;e.g., “defend the organization when other employees criticizeit”). Consistent with past research (Williams and Anderson,1991; Organ, 1997), we analyzed the dimensions of OCBseparately because different results are often obtained forthem.

We chose supervisory ratings of task performance and OCBbecause of the several advantages that they provide (Rynes,Gerhart, and Parks, 2005). Supervisors provide the majority ofthe performance ratings in organizations (Bretz, Milkovich,and Read, 1992). Supervisory ratings can be used for virtuallyany type of job, including jobs in which objective perfor-mance is difficult or impossible to measure (Landy and Farr,1980). A different approach would have required us toexclude participants in jobs such as manager from the studyand, in turn, would have reduced our ability to generalizefrom the results. A broad range of important job behaviors,including variables that are not under the employee’s controlbut that influence performance, can be included in the mea-surement. For these reasons, researchers consider supervi-sory ratings to be most likely valid reflections of actual perfor-mance (Arvey and Murphy, 1998; Guion, 1998). Althoughperformance ratings collected for research purposes exhibit a.58 correlation with ratings collected for administrative pur-poses, and both types of ratings exhibit similar correlationswith other variables, ratings obtained for research purposesexhibit less leniency error than those obtained for administra-

tive purposes (Harris, Smith, and Champagne, 1995). Accord-ingly, we ensured supervisors that performance ratings wereobtained solely for research purposes.

Control variables (psychological). We controlled for leader-member exchange to rule out an alternative explanation ofany results. Leader-member exchange denotes the quality ofthe relationship between an employee and the employee’ssupervisor (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995). Evidence linking emo-tional intelligence to the quality of social relationships (Lopeset al., 2004) suggests that emotional intelligence may be

11/ ASQ, March 2006





related to leader-member exchange. Moreover, leader-mem-ber exchange is related to job performance (Gerstner andDay, 1997), and supervisors may provide lenient ratings tosubordinates with whom they have good relationships. Thus,individuals with high emotional intelligence and low cognitiveintelligence could have received high ratings because theydeveloped good relationships with their supervisors. To rule

out this possibility, supervisors completed the LMX7 mea-sure for leaders (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995), as recommend-ed by Gerstner and Day (1997) following their literaturereview and meta-analysis. Using supervisors’ assessments ofleader-member exchange may yield a conservative testbecause supervisors provided the ratings of job performanceand, therefore, the ratings of job performance may be biasedmost by the supervisors’ assessments of leader-memberexchange. The LMX7 measure includes seven items rated on5-point scales with varying anchors. For example, theanchors to the item “How would you characterize your work-ing relationship with your employee?” range from 1,“extremely ineffective,” to 5, “extremely effective.”

Controlling for leader-member exchange by itself is insuffi-cient to rule it out completely as an alternative explanation ofany results because we predicted an interaction. The interac-tion between leader-member exchange and cognitive intelli-gence may carry a joint association of emotional intelligenceand cognitive intelligence with job performance, even in thepresence of leader-member exchange by itself (Hull, Tedlie,and Lehn, 1992). That is, there could be an interactionbetween leader-member exchange and cognitive intelligencethat looks essentially the same as the hypothesized interac-tion between emotional intelligence and cognitive intelli-gence, so that the association between leader-memberexchange and job performance becomes more positive ascognitive intelligence decreases. We verified that this wasnot the case by including both leader-member exchange andthe interaction term for leader-member exchange and cogni-tive intelligence as control variables (Hull, Tedlie, and Lehn,1992).

We also controlled for the Big Five traits of personality thatreflect typical ways of acting at a broad level of analysis(McCrae and Costa, 1987; McCrae and John, 1992) becausethey may act as confounding third variables. Agreeablenessrepresents the tendency to be warm and cooperative; consci-entiousness reflects the degree to which people are orga-nized, hardworking, and dependable; emotional stability is thetendency to avoid negative emotional experiences and fluctu-ations in emotions; extraversion concerns individuals’ level of

gregariousness, assertiveness, and sociability; and opennessto experience concerns people’s typical levels of creativityand curiosity. The Big Five traits are conceptually related tothe emotion system (Izard, 2001), and a quantitative reviewrevealed that the Big Five traits exhibit correlations rangingfrom .06 to .21 with emotional intelligence (Mayer, Salovey,and Caruso, 2004). Moreover, every Big Five trait is related tojob performance, either universally or in certain jobs (Barrick,Mitchell, and Stewart, 2003). To verify that the Big Five traitsdid not produce spurious associations between emotional

12/ ASQ, March 2006




intelligence and job performance, we administered the 50-item version of the International Personality Item Pool (Gold-berg, 1999). This scale contains 10 self-descriptive items foreach of the Big Five traits, anchored at 1, “very inaccurate,”and 5, “very accurate.” Correlations between scoresobtained with this scale and the NEO-PI-R, another widelyused measure of the Big Five traits, average .77 (Goldberg,

1999).

Control variables (demographic). To conduct conservativetests of the hypotheses, we controlled for education level,the number of hours worked per week, and occupation. Edu-cation level was coded as follows: high school degree (1),community college degree (2), some university (3), universitydegree (4), Master’s degree (5), and Ph.D. or Medical Doctor(6). Education level was positively correlated with OCBO. Thenumber of hours worked per week was positively correlatedwith both task performance and OCBO. Participants in man-agement occupations exhibited higher levels of task perfor-mance and both dimensions of OCB than participants whowere not in these occupations. Participants in office and

administrative occupations exhibited lower levels of task per-formance and OCBO than participants who were not in theseoccupations. Finally, participants in computer and mathemati-cal occupations exhibited lower levels of OCBO than partici-pants who were not in these occupations.1 We createddummy codes for management, office and administrativesupport, computer and mathematical, and other occupations.We used other occupations as the comparison category. Nei-ther emotional intelligence nor job performance was relatedto age, gender, tenure in the organization, or total years ofwork experience. Subsidiary analyses showed that the sub-stantive conclusions were virtually identical when we alsocontrolled for these demographic variables.

Analysis

Construct adequacy and discriminant validity of the testof emotional intelligence. We used confirmatory factoranalysis to test whether the observed measures were associ-ated with their respective constructs. We examined the fit ofthe model and verified that each indicator loaded significantlywith its intended construct. We then formally assessed thediscriminant validity of the test of emotional intelligence bytesting additional models that constrain the associationbetween two latent constructs to 1 and using a chi-squaretest of the difference in fit between the model with theunconstrained association and the model with the con-strained association (Bagozzi and Phillips, 1982; Anderson

and Gerbing, 1988). Discriminant validity is inferred if themodel with the constrained association provides a significant-ly worse fit to the data than the model with the uncon-strained association. Additional evidence of discriminant valid-ity is provided if the 95-percent confidence interval for thelatent correlation between two constructs in the uncon-strained model does not include 1.

We tested a model linking the constructs of emotional intelli-gence, cognitive intelligence, agreeableness, conscientious-ness, emotional stability, extraversion, openness to experi-

1

There are at least three explanations ofthe differences in job performance acrossoccupations. First, managers may haveexhibited higher performance than non-managers because strong performers

were promoted to managerial jobs. Sec-ond, differences in job performanceacross occupations may have emerged asa result of the characteristics of groupleaders, given evidence that the produc-tivity of business units depends on thetransformational qualities of leaders(Howell and Avolio, 1993). Third, the uni-versity may have had more successrecruiting and retaining high-performingemployees in some occupations than inothers. For these reasons, the differencesin job performance across occupationsmost likely reflect true variance.

13/ ASQ, March 2006





ence, leader-member exchange, task performance, OCBI,and OCBO to their measured indicators. To reduce the num-ber of estimated parameters, we used the four subtests ofthe emotional intelligence test that correspond to the abilitiesto perceive, use, understand, and regulate emotions and thefour subtests of the cognitive intelligence test as indicators.We aggregated the items from the measures of each of the

Big Five traits, leader-member exchange, and the OCBdimensions by randomly assigning them to three aggregateindicators per construct (Bagozzi and Edwards, 1998). We didnot aggregate the task performance items because therewere only five of them. The theorized eleven-factor model, χ2

(574, N = 175) = 913.97, p < .001, CFI = .90, NNFI = .88;SRMSR = .070, RMSEA = .058, provided a reasonable fit tothe data (Browne and Cudeck, 1993; Hu and Bentler, 1999).Each item loaded significantly with its intended construct, asevidenced by the t-values greater than 6.70 (p s < .01). Theresults of the tests of discriminant validity, displayed intable 1, support the discriminant validity of the test of emo-tional intelligence.

Analytical strategy. We used hierarchical multiple regressionto test the hypotheses. We centered the continuous predic-tors to facilitate the interpretation of the findings (Cohen etal., 2003). We entered education level, the number of hoursworked per week, the dummy codes for occupation, the BigFive traits, leader-member exchange, the leader-memberexchange by cognitive intelligence interaction, emotionalintelligence, and cognitive intelligence in step 1 and the emo-tional intelligence by cognitive intelligence interaction in step2. If the change in R2 in step 2 is significant, we can con-clude that the interaction between emotional intelligence andcognitive intelligence is a unique predictor of job performance(Aiken and West, 1991; Cohen et al., 2003). Five participantsdid not reveal their educational level, the number of hours

they worked per week, or both. We conducted the analysesusing listwise deletion, resulting in a sample of 170 partici-pants. Analyses repeated using the mean replacement proce-dure revealed the same substantive conclusions. Graphicaland statistical analyses (Fox, 1991; Roth and Switzer, 2002;Cohen et al., 2003) revealed that our substantive conclusionswere not unduly influenced by any outliers or influentialobservations.

14/ ASQ, March 2006


Table 1

Tests of Discriminant Validity of the Emotional Intelligence Measure

Latent correlation with 95-percent confidence interval

Construct emotional intelligence for the latent correlation χ2 (1)

Agreeableness .27 .07 to –.47 94.83•••

Conscientiousness –.25 –.43 to –.07 133.32•••

Emotional stability .07 –.11 to –.25 144.70•••

Extraversion .10 –.08 to –.28 142.74•••

Openness to experience .14 –.08 to –.36 97.02•••

Leader-member exchange .25 .07 to –.43 135.38•••

Cognitive intelligence .68 .54 to –.82 35.25•••

Task performance .35 .17 to –.53 114.97•••

OCBO .37 .21 to –.53 111.44•••

OCBI .20 .02 to –.38 134.77•••

•••p < .001.



RESULTS

Descriptive statistics, internal reliability coefficients, and cor-relations among the variables are shown in table 2. Themeans and standard deviations for emotional intelligence andcognitive intelligence were close to the normative means andstandard deviations of 100 and 15, respectively. Both emo-tional intelligence and cognitive intelligence were positivelycorrelated with all three dimensions of job performance.Agreeableness and extraversion were positively correlatedwith task performance and OCBO. Openness to experiencewas positively correlated with OCBO. None of the personalitytraits was correlated with OCBI. 2

Emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, and taskperformance. Hypothesis 1 predicted that the associationbetween emotional intelligence and task performance willbecome more positive as cognitive intelligence decreases.The results shown in table 3 reveal that the interactionbetween emotional intelligence and cognitive intelligencepredicted task performance. The interaction, graphed infigure 1, is consistent with hypothesis 1. The simple slope

representing the association between emotional intelligenceand task performance at one standard deviation in cognitiveintelligence below the mean, calculated using the proceduresdescribed by Aiken and West (1991), is positive and signifi-cant, = .26, t(154) = 3.19, p < .01. In contrast, the simple

2

Although some past research has foundthat conscientiousness is correlated withjob performance (Barrick and Mount,1991; Hurtz and Donovan, 2000), our non-significant correlation is consistent withother research. In their meta-analysis,Tett, Jackson, and Rothstein (1991) founda 95-percent confidence interval for theuncorrected correlation between consci-entiousness and job performance rangingfrom –.11 to .35, which would include ourcorrelation of –.06. Past research also

suggests that conscientiousness is nega-tively related to aspects of learning suchas acquiring skills and declarative knowl-edge (Martocchio and Judge, 1997;Colquitt, LePine, and Noe, 2000), whichreveals a potential “dark side” to con-scientiousness.

15/ ASQ, March 2006



Table 2

Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Correlations*

Variable N Mean S.D. .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07

01. Education 171 3.49 1.29 .—02. Number of hours worked per week 173 40.53 5.33 .19• .—03. Computer and mathematical occupations 175 .16 .37 –.04 –.12 .—

04. Management occupations 175 .21 .41 .24•• .28••• –.23•• .—05. Office and admin. support occupations 175 .23 .42 –.37••• –.16• –.24•• –.29••• .—06. Other occupations 175 .39 .49 .15• –.01 –.35••• –.41••• –.44••• .—07. Agreeableness 175 4.28 .47 .10 .11 –.10 .06 –.03 .04 (.75)08. Conscientiousness 175 4.01 .58 –.07 .09 –.09 .06 .06 –.03 .1309. Emotional stability 175 3.52 .81 .07 .12 –.12 .11 .01 –.02 .18•

10. Extraversion 175 3.39 .77 .14 .17• –.12 .10 –.05 .05 .34•••

11. Openness to experience 175 3.83 .49 .22•• .01 –.04 .02 –.09 .10 .25••

12. Leader-member exchange 175 4.17 .56 –.04 .12 –.21•• .22•• –.05 .02 .0413. Emotional intelligence 175 97.49 16.57 .00 .10 –.11 .13 .04 –.04 .23••

14. Cognitive intelligence 175 102.80 17.56 .24•• .13 –.01 .07 –.23•• .16• .0015. Task performance 175 5.35 1.17 .14 .24•• –.11 .21•• –.24•• .11 .17•

16. OCBO 175 3.71 .91 .23•• .27••• –.21•• .31••• –.21•• .08 .21••

17. OCBI 175 3.83 .73 .09 .11 –.14 .29••• –.09 –.05 .10

Variable .08 .09 .10 .11 .12 .13 .14 .15 .16 .17

08. Conscientiousness (.78)09. Emotional stability .29••• (.90)10. Extraversion .01 .21•• (.87)11. Openness to experience .03 .15• .32•••(.70)12. Leader-member exchange .05 .06 –.09 .00 (.85)13. Emotional intelligence –.14 .03 .08 .11 .19• (.92)14. Cognitive intelligence –.21••• -.07 .08 .09 .20• .47••• (.81)15. Task performance –.06 .05 .18• .13 .60••• .32••• .35••• (.91)16. OCBO .04 .08 .22•• .15• .61••• .27••• .35••• .65••• (.94)17. OCBI –.08 .03 .13 -.01 .59••• .15• .28••• .60••• .78••• (.91)

• p < .05; •• p < .01; ••• p < .001.* Values in parentheses along the diagonal are alpha coefficients.



slope representing the association between emotional intelli-gence and task performance at one standard deviation in cog-nitive intelligence above the mean is not significant, = .01,t(154) = .09, p = .93. Thus, hypothesis 1 is supported.

Emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, and organi-zational citizenship behavior (OCB). Hypothesis 2 predictedthat the association between emotional intelligence and OCBwill become more positive as cognitive intelligence decreas-es. We conducted two tests of this hypothesis, one withOCBO and one with OCBI. The results shown in table 3reveal that the interaction between emotional intelligenceand cognitive intelligence predicts OCBO. The interaction,graphed in figure 2, is consistent with hypothesis 2. The sim-ple slope representing the association between emotionalintelligence and OCBO at one standard deviation in cognitiveintelligence below the mean is positive and significant, =.19, t(154) = 2.54, p < .05. In contrast, the simple slope rep-resenting the association between emotional intelligence andOCBO at one standard deviation in cognitive intelligenceabove the mean is not significant, = –.11, t(154) = –1.35,

16/ ASQ, March 2006


Table 3

Hierarchical Multiple Regression of Job Performance (N = 170)

Task Performance OCBO OCBI

Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2

Variables Entered .B . .B . .B . .B . .B . .B .

Constant 5.19 5.24 3.52 3.57 3.57 3.59Education .04 .04 .03 .04 .09• .13• .09• .13• .03 .04 .02 .04Number of hours—worked per week .02 .10 .02 .09 .02 .10 .01 .07 –.01 –.03 –.01 –.05Computer and—mathematicaloccupations .05 .02 .03 .01 –.11 –.05 –.13 –.05 .06 .03 .04 .02Management

occupations –.08 –.03 –.07 –.02 .19 .09 .20 .09 .32• .18• .32•• .18••

Office and admini-strative supportoccupations –.39• –.15• –.33 –.12 –.14 –.07 –.09 –.04 .11 .06 .14 .08

Agreeableness .15 .06 .16 .07 .19 .10 .20 .10 .14 .09 .14 .09Conscientiousness –.05 –.02 –.01 –.01 –.05 –.03 –.01 –.01 –.12 –.09 –.10 –.08Emotional stability –.06 –.04 –.07 –.05 –.03 –.03 –.04 –.03 –.01 –.01 –.01 –.01Extraversion .25• .17• .22• .15• .19• .16• .16• .14• .14• .15• .13• .14•

Openness toexperience .03 .01 .06 .03 .01 .01 .05 .03 –.14 –.10 –.13 –.09

Leader-memberexchange 1.13••• .54••• 1.12••• .54••• .89••• .54••• .88••• .54••• .72••• .55••• .72••• .55•••

Leader-memberexchange Cognitiveintelligence –.01 –.08 –.00 –.03 –.01 –.08 –.00 –.03 –.01 –.09 –.00 –.05

Emotional intelligence .01• .15• .01 .13 .00 .06 .00 .04 –.00 –.09 –.00 –.10Cognitive intelligence .01 .12 .01 .07 .01• .15• .01 .09 .01• .21• .01• .17•

Emotional intelligencex Cognitiveintelligence .00• –.17• –.00•• –.20•• .00 –.12

R2 .50••• .02• .56••• .03•• .46••• .01F 11.25••• 6.78• 14.14••• 11.34•• 9.41••• 3.22D.f. 14, 155 1, 154 14, 155 1, 154 14, 155 1, 154

• p < .05; •• p < .01; ••• p < .001.



p = .18. Inspection of table 3 also reveals that the interactionof cognitive intelligence and emotional intelligence is notrelated to OCBI. The hypothesized interaction between emo-tional intelligence and cognitive intelligence is found forOCBO, but not for OCBI. Thus, hypothesis 2 is partially sup-ported.

Mediational Analyses

We measured leader-member exchange to rule out its poten-tial mediational effects. The analyses reported in table 3,however, do not represent complete tests of mediation.Accordingly, we conducted additional analyses to test formediation. Both partial and full mediation can be ruled out if

the predictor is not related to the potential mediator (Jamesand Brett, 1984; Kenny, Kashy, and Bolger, 1998). The predic-tor, the emotional intelligence by cognitive intelligence inter-action, did not predict two potential mediators, leader-mem-ber exchange, = –.04, t(171) = .48, p = .63, or theleader-member exchange by cognitive intelligence interac-tion, = .01, t(171) = .20, p = .84. There was no evidencethat leader-member exchange mediated the associationsamong emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, and jobperformance.

17/ ASQ, March 2006



Figure 1. Moderating effect of cognitive intelligence on the association between emotional intelligence andtask performance.

High Cognitive Intelligence(+1 S.D.)

Low Cognitive Intelligence(–1 S.D.)

T a s k P e r f o r m a n c e


Low High(–1 S.D.) (+1 S.D.)

6

5

4



We also examined whether the Big Five traits acted as medi-ators. The predictor, the emotional intelligence by cognitiveintelligence interaction, did not predict five potential media-tors: agreeableness, = .01, t(171) = .07, p = .94; conscien-tiousness, = .12, t(171) = 1.58, p = .12; emotional stability, = –.04, t(171) = –.45, p = .66; extraversion, = –.13, t(171)= 1.65, p = .10; or openness to experience, = .06, t(171) =.76, p = .45. There was no evidence that the Big Five traitsmediated the associations among emotional intelligence, cog-nitive intelligence, and job performance.

Subsidiary Analyses Involving the Emotional Demands ofJobs

We examined whether the emotional demands of the jobaffected how emotional intelligence and cognitive intelligence

were associated with job performance. In the compensatorymodel, emotional intelligence compensates for low levels ofcognitive intelligence in most, if not all jobs, because effec-tive social interaction, good decisions, and high motivationcontribute to job performance in most, if not all jobs. Our the-orizing differs from that of Wong and Law (2002), who pro-posed that emotional intelligence is more strongly related tojob performance in emotionally demanding jobs than in otherjobs. Wong and Law (2002) found that the interactionbetween employee-rated emotional demands and emotional

18/ ASQ, March 2006


Figure 2. Moderating effect of cognitive intelligence on the association between emotional intelligence andorganizational citizenship behavior directed at the organization.

O r g a n i z a t i o n a l

C i t i z e n s h i p B e h a v i o r D i r e c t e d a t t h e O r g

a n i z a t i o n 4

3.5

3

High CognitiveIntelligence(+1 S.D.)

Low CognitiveIntelligence(–1 S.D.)


Low High(–1 S.D.) (+1 S.D.)



intelligence was a significant predictor of job performance.The interaction between supervisor-rated emotional demandsand emotional intelligence, however, was not a significantpredictor of job performance by conventional standards.

To shed further light on this issue, we created emotionaldemands scores for each participant’s job using two items

from the generalized work activities section (“assisting andcaring for others” and “performing for or working with thepublic”) and three items from the work context section(“deal with external customers,” “frequency in conflict situa-tions,” and “deal with angry/unpleasant people”) of O*NET(Glomb, Kammeyer-Mueller, and Rotundo, 2004). The addi-tional “providing a service to others” item used by Glomb,Kammeyer-Mueller, and Rotundo (2004) was removed fromO*NET during its most recent revision and, therefore, we didnot use it. We computed a score for the emotional demandscorresponding to each O*NET job code by standardizingwithin each of the five scales and then summing the stan-dardized scores. The internal reliability coefficient was .92.For example, the O*NET code 113031.02, which represents

the job of financial manager, corresponded to scores of 1.83,3.33, 2.75, 3.17, and 2.50 for the five items listed above. Thestandardized scores were –.17, 1.19, .39, 1.66, and .77. Theemotional demands score for this O*NET code was the sumof these scores, 3.83. We used the scores associated witheach O*NET code to assign each participant the appropriateemotional demands score. Emotional demands scores couldnot be calculated for 26 participants because of informationmissing in O*NET.

We regressed job performance on all of the control variables,emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, emotionaldemands, the three two-way interactions, and the three-wayinteraction of emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence,and emotional demands (Aiken and West, 1991). The three-way interaction was not a significant predictor of task perfor-mance, = –.05, t(128) = –.56, p = .58; OCBO, = –.12,t(128) = –1.57, p = .12; or OCBI, = –.16, t(128) = –1.78,p = .08, revealing no evidence that emotional intelligence andcognitive intelligence predicted job performance differently injobs with different emotional demands.

DISCUSSION

Past research has implicitly or explicitly proposed that emo-tional intelligence and cognitive intelligence relate to job per-formance in independent and complementary linear ways(Goleman, 1998; Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso, 2000). The pre-sent study reveals, instead, that emotional intelligence and

cognitive intelligence are compensatory with respect to taskperformance and organizational citizenship behavior directedat the organization (OCBO). Emotional intelligence becomes astronger predictor of task performance and OCBO as cogni-tive intelligence decreases. Our results reveal that employeeswith low cognitive intelligence perform tasks correctly andengage in OCBO frequently if they are emotionally intelligent.

Our findings provide a potential way to reconcile the diver-gent findings in past research. Presumably, past studies thatfound an association between emotional intelligence and job

19/ ASQ, March 2006





performance had samples of employees with, on average,lower cognitive intelligence than studies that did not find thisassociation. It is difficult to ascertain whether this is thecase, however, because only some of the past studies mea-sured cognitive intelligence, and different measures of cogni-tive intelligence with scores calculated on different scaleswere administered.

Our findings address the controversy about the usefulness ofemotional intelligence for organizational research and man-agerial practice. Landy (2005) and Zeidner, Matthews, andRoberts (2004) argued against using emotional intelligence topredict job performance unless it makes an incremental linearcontribution to prediction. Our results suggest that this argu-ment is overly simplistic. Predictors of job performance suchas emotional intelligence may be important in ways otherthan their incremental linear effects (Murphy, 1996; Hough,2003). Our results show that emotional intelligence is animportant predictor of task performance and OCBO becauseof its interactive effect with cognitive intelligence. Our resultsalso reveal that using cognitive intelligence tests alone to pre-

dict performance entails risk, because employees with lowcognitive intelligence can perform effectively if they havehigh emotional intelligence.

Our hypothesis concerning OCBI was not supported. Onepossible explanation concerns how abilities and personalitytraits may predict job performance criteria differently (Hough,2003). For example, one study found that cognitive intelli-gence predicts the technical proficiency of soldiers betterthan their personal discipline, and the opposite is true for per-sonality traits (McHenry et al., 1990). Task performance con-cerns core substantive duties, and OCBO includes takingaction to protect the organization from potential problemsand offering ideas to improve the functioning of the organiza-tion. The behaviors encompassed by task performance andOCBO may depend on abilities more than does OCBI, whichfocuses, in large part, on helping others.

Future Directions

Our performance measures consisted of ratings by thesupervisors. These measures may be limited by the relativelylow interrater reliability of supervisory ratings, which impliesthat any one supervisory rating includes measurement error(Viswesvaran, Ones, and Schmidt, 1996). We are encouragedby evidence that supervisors agree with each other to agreater extent when they provide ratings for research purpos-es (r = .67 between two raters; Harris, Smith, and Cham-pagne, 1995) than in general (interrater reliability = .52;

Viswesvaran, Ones, and Schmidt, 1996). Even so, futureresearch with performance measures other than supervisoryratings, if available, would help to address this limitation ofour study.

Our measures of performance invite some alternative expla-nations of the results. One alternative explanation is that theemotional intelligence of individuals with low cognitive intelli-gence enhances their likeability and, in turn, their perfor-mance ratings. Our research design sheds light on the viabili-ty of this alternative explanation. Leader-member exchange is

20/ ASQ, March 2006




related to how much the supervisor likes the employee(Dockery and Steiner, 1990), and the mediation analysesrevealed no evidence of an intervening role of leader-memberexchange. The mediation analyses also revealed no evidenceof intervening roles of agreeableness or extraversion thatreflect, in part, likeability (Costa and McCrae, 1992; Lopes etal., 2005). The supportive results for task performance and

OCBO, but not OCBI, also argue against an alternative expla-nation based on liking. It is difficult to explain why likeableemployees may have received inflated ratings on only two ofthe three criteria. Finally, past research showing that supervi-sors like subordinates who perform well (Robbins andDeNisi, 1994) suggests that strong performance by the sub-ordinate leads to both high ratings and liking from the super-visor and casts further doubt on the possibility that individu-als with high emotional intelligence and low cognitiveintelligence received high ratings because they were liked.Even so, a direct test of the potential role of supervisors’ lik-ing of employees is needed.

Another alternative explanation is that emotional intelligence

assisted individuals with low cognitive intelligence to managetheir impressions well and, in turn, receive high performanceratings. There is conceptual and empirical evidence that sub-ordinates who manage their impressions successfully devel-op good relationships with their supervisors (Liden andMitchell, 1989; Wayne and Green, 1993). Therefore, the con-trol for leader-member exchange casts some doubt on a rolefor impression management. It is also difficult to explain whyemployees who managed impressions well may havereceived inflated ratings of task performance and OCBO butnot OCBI. From a different perspective, impression manage-ment could be viewed as a job skill that supervisors shouldtake into account when rating performance because it mayhelp employees to perform tasks correctly and engage in

OCBO frequently. In future research, it would be useful toexamine whether impression management plays a substan-tive role in the associations between emotional intelligence,cognitive intelligence, and job performance.

It would also be interesting for future research to examinewhether emotional intelligence is associated with job perfor-mance in individuals with low cognitive intelligence becauseit helps them reach advantageous positions in social net-works. Emotional intelligence may help individuals developlinks to friends and coworkers that provide assistance that, inturn, contributes to high performance (Mehra, Kilduff, andBrass, 2001; Sparrowe et al., 2001). In addition, individualswho connect disparate groups achieve high performance by

brokering between these groups (Burt, 1992). Establishingthese connections may often be emotionally challengingbecause different groups often have different norms and cul-tures that may be incongruent with one another. Emotionalintelligence may help individuals with low cognitive intelli-gence manage the emotional discomfort of connecting dis-parate groups and, in turn, achieve high performance.

Emotionally intelligent individuals with low cognitive intelli-gence may also achieve high job performance because theymanage conflict successfully. Past research has found that

21/ ASQ, March 2006





relationship conflict, a form of conflict that concerns interper-sonal disagreements and incompatibilities, impedes perfor-mance because it consumes resources and distracts organi-zation members from tasks (e.g., Jehn, 1997; Jehn andMannix, 2001). In addition, negative emotions exacerbate thedetrimental impact of relationship conflict on performance(Jehn, 1997). Evidence that emotionally intelligent individuals

tend to develop close social relationships (e.g., Lopes et al.,2004, 2005) suggests that, compared with their counterparts,they may have less relationship conflict and manage relation-ship conflict more effectively when it arises.

Exploring the potential role of emotional contagion in theassociations between emotional intelligence, cognitive intelli-gence, and job performance represents another interestingavenue for future research. Emotional contagion is a processby which organization members catch other people’s emo-tions by mimicking their facial expressions and, in turn, expe-riencing the emotions that they are mimicking (Hatfield,Cacioppo, and Rapson, 1992; Barsade, 2002). Emotional con-tagion has implications for aspects of performance such as

the expenditure of effort, cooperation, and coordinationbetween people (Barsade, 2002; Sy, Côté, and Saavedra,2005). Emotionally intelligent people with low cognitive intelli-gence may use emotional contagion to influence other peo-ple’s emotions and behaviors in ways that enhance their ownperformance.

It is important to examine further whether the associationsbetween emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, andjob performance depend on the nature of the job. Our mea-sure of the emotional demands of jobs was based on five jobactivities and work context items from O*NET that may notcapture the entire construct of emotional demands. In addi-tion, the statistical power that was available to detect small-

sized (f2 = .02) and medium-sized (f2 = .15) effects (Cohen,1988) of the interaction between emotional intelligence, cog-nitive intelligence, and emotional demands was .39 and .99,respectively. Thus, although we can be confident that ouranalyses would have detected medium-sized effects, we can-not be confident that small-sized effects do not exist. Studieswith more complete measures of emotional demands andlarger samples are needed.

Finally, future research should examine how to improve themeasurement of emotional intelligence. We used an abilitytest of emotional intelligence to circumvent the limitations ofcommonly used self-report and peer-report measures.Despite its advantages, this test may not reflect exactly how

people process emotional information in real-life social inter-actions (Matthews, Zeidner, and Roberts, 2002). In addition,the test may require some cognitive abilities such as abilitiesin the domain of language to complete successfully. We donot consider the potential measurement overlap to be prob-lematic because a substantial degree of overlap would havecaused a poor fit in our confirmatory factor analysis andmade it difficult to detect the hypothesized interactions. Evenso, it will be important to replicate the findings as tests ofemotional intelligence are improved.

22/ ASQ, March 2006




Ackerman, P. L., M. E. Beier, andM. O. Boyle2005 “Working memory and intelli-

gence: The same or differentconstructs?” PsychologicalBulletin, 131: 30–60.

Aiken, L. S., and S. G. West1991 Multiple Regression: Testing

and Interpreting Interactions.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Alreck, P. L., and R. B. Settle2004 The Survey Research Hand-

book. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Anderson, J. C., and D. W.Gerbing1988 “Structural equation modeling

in practice: A review and rec-ommended two-stepapproach.” Psychological Bul-letin, 103: 411–423.

Arvey, R. D., and K. R. Murphy1998 “Performance evaluation in

work settings.” Annual

Review of Psychology, 49:141–168.

Ashkanasy, N., and C. S. Daus2002 “Emotion in the workplace:

The new challenge for man-agers.” Academy of Manage-ment Executive, 16 (1):76–86.

Austin, E. J.2004 “An investigation of the rela-

tionship between trait emo-tional intelligence and emo-tional task performance.”Personality and Individual Dif-ferences, 36: 1855–1864.

Bachman, J., S. Stein, K.Campbell, and G. Sitarenios2000 “Emotional intelligence in the

collection of debt.” Interna-tional Journal of Selection andAssessment, 8: 176–182.

Bagozzi, R. P., and J. R. Edwards1998 “A general approach for rep-

resenting constructs in orga-nizational research.” Organi-zational Research Methods,1: 45–87.

Bagozzi, R. P., and L. W. Phillips1982 “Representing and testing

organizational theories: Aholistic construal.” Adminis-trative Science Quarterly, 27:459–489.

Bar-On, R.2001 “Emotional intelligence and

self-actualization.” In J. Ciar-

rochi, J. P. Forgas, and J. D.Mayer (eds.), Emotional Intel-ligence in Everyday Life:82–97. Philadelphia: Taylorand Francis.

Barrett, G. V., R. F. Miguel, J. A.Tan, and J. M. Hurd2001 “Emotional intelligence: The

Madison Avenue approach toscience and professional prac-tice.” Paper presented at theannual meeting of the Societyfor Industrial and Organiza-tional Psychology, San Diego,CA.

Barrick, M. R., T. R. Mitchell, andG. L. Stewart2003 “Situational and motivational

influences on trait-behaviorrelationships.” In M. R. Bar-rick and A. M. Ryan (eds.),Personality and Work: Recon-sidering the Role of Personali-ty in Organizations: 60–82.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Barrick, M. R., and M. K. Mount1991 “The Big Five personality

dimensions and job perfor-mance: A meta-analysis.”Personnel Psychology, 44:1–26.

Barsade, S. G.2002 “The ripple effect: Emotional

contagion and its influence ongroup behavior.” Administra-tive Science Quarterly, 47:644–675.

Becker, T.2003 “Is emotional intelligence a

viable concept?” Academy ofManagement Review, 28:192–195.

Bickart, B.1993 “Carryover and backfire

effects in marketingresearch.” Journal of Market-ing Research, 30: 52–62.

Borman, W. C., and S. J.Motowidlo1997 “Task performance and con-

textual performance: The

meaning for personnel selec-tion research.” Human Perfor-mance, 10: 99–109.

Boyatzis, R. E., E. C. Stubbs, andS. N. Taylor2002 “Learning cognitive and emo-

tional intelligence competen-cies through graduate man-agement education.”Academy of ManagementLearning and Education, 1:150–162.

Brackett, M., and J. D. Mayer2003 “Convergent, discriminant,

and incremental validity ofcompeting measures of emo-

tional intelligence.” Personali-ty and Social Psychology Bul-letin, 29: 1147–1158.

Bretz, R. D., Jr., G. T. Milkovich,and W. Read1992 “The current state of perfor-

mance appraisal research andpractice: Concerns, direc-tions, and implications.” Jour-nal of Management, 18:321–352.

Brody, N.2004 “What cognitive intelligence

is and what emotional intelli-gence is not.” PsychologicalInquiry, 15: 234–238.

Browne, T. W., and R. Cudeck1993 “Alternative ways of assess-

ing model fit.” In K. A. Bollenand J. S. Long (eds.), TestingStructural Equation Models:136–162. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

23/ ASQ, March 2006



It is commonly believed that organizations that attract andretain the smartest people will have a competitive advantage,because cognitive intelligence helps workers to processincreasingly technical and large amounts of information(Schmidt and Hunter, 1998, 2000; Michaels, Handfield-Jones,and Axelrod, 2001). Our results showing that emotional intel-ligence compensates for low cognitive intelligence suggest

that this common belief represents just one approach tobuilding a successful organization. Organizations can also besuccessful if they attract and retain people who have highemotional intelligence.

REFERENCES



Burt, R. S.1992 Structural Holes: The Social

Structure of Competition.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-versity Press.

Carroll, J. B.1993 Human Cognitive Abilities: A

Survey of Factor-Analytic

Studies. New York: Cam-bridge University Press.

Caruso, D. R., and P. Salovey2004 The Emotionally Intelligent

Manager. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Cassidy, J., R. D. Parke, L.Butovsky, and J. M. Braungart1992 “Family-peer connections:

The roles of emotionalexpressiveness within thefamily and children’s under-standing of emotions.” ChildDevelopment, 63: 603–618.

Cattell, R. B.

1973 Manual for the Cattell CultureFair Intelligence Test. Cham-paign, IL: Institute for Person-ality and Ability Testing.

Chan, D., and N. Schmitt2002 “Situational judgment and job

performance.” Human Perfor-mance, 15: 233–254.

Ciarrochi, J. V., A. Y. C. Chan, andP. Caputi2000 “A critical evaluation of the

emotional intelligence con-struct.” Personality and Indi-vidual Differences, 28:539–561.

Cohen, J.

1988 Statistical Power Analysis forthe Behavioral Sciences.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cohen, J., P. Cohen, S. G. West,and L. S. Aiken2003 Applied Multiple

Regression/Correlation Analy-sis for the Behavioral Sci-ences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Colquitt, J. A., J. A. LePine, andR. A. Noe2000 “Toward an integrative theory

of training motivation: Ameta-analytic path analysis of20 years of research.” Journalof Applied Psychology, 85:678–707.

Costa, P. T., Jr., and R. R. McCrae1992 Revised NEO Personality

Inventory: Professional Manu-al. Odessa, FL: PsychologicalAssessment Resources.

Davies, M., L. Stankov, and R. D.Roberts1998 “Emotional intelligence: In

search of an elusive con-struct.” Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 75:989–1015.

Day, A. L., and S. A. Carroll

2004 “Using an ability-based mea-sure of emotional intelligenceto predict individual perfor-mance, group performance,and group citizenship behav-iors.” Personality and Individ-ual Differences, 36:1443–1458.

Denham, S. A., J. Mitchell-Copeland, K. Strandberg, S.Auerbach, and K. Blair1997 “Parental contributions to

preschoolers’ emotional com-petence: Direct and indirecteffects.” Motivation andEmotion, 21: 65–86.

Dockery, T. M., and D. D. Steiner1990 “The role of the initial interac-

tion in leader-memberexchange.” Group and Orga-nization Studies, 15: 395–413.

Donovan, J. J., S. A. Dwight, andG. M. Hurtz2003 “An assessment of the preva-

lence, severity, and verifiabili-ty of entry-level applicant fak-ing using the randomizedresponse technique.” HumanPerformance, 16: 81–106.

Eisenberg, N.2000 “Emotion, regulation, and

moral development.” Annual

Review of Psychology, 51:665–697.

Elfenbein, H. A.2006 “Learning in emotion judg-

ments: Training and the cross-cultural understanding offacial expressions.” Journal ofNonverbal Behavior, vol. 30(in press).

Ellemers, N., H. Wilke, and A. vanKnippenberg1993 “Effects of the legitimacy of

low group or individual statuson individual and collectivestatus-enhancement strate-gies.” Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 64:766–778.

Erez, A., and A. M. Isen2002 “The influence of positive

affect on the components ofexpectancy motivation.” Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 87:1055–1067.

Fast Company 2000 “How do you feel?” Vol. 35:

296.

Feyerherm, A. E., and C. L. Rice2002 “Emotional intelligence and

team performance: The good,the bad, and the ugly.” Inter-national Journal of Organiza-tional Analysis, 10: 343–362.

Fink, A.1995 The Survey Handbook. Thou-

sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fox, J.1991 Regression Diagnostics. New-

bury Park, CA: Sage.

Gabriel, M. T., J. W. Critelli, andJ. S. Ee1994 “Narcissistic illusions in self-

evaluations of intelligence andattractiveness.” Journal ofPersonality, 62: 144–145.

Gerstner, C. R., and D. V. Day1997 “Meta-analytic review of

leader-member exchange the-ory: Correlates and constructissues.” Journal of Applied

Psychology, 82: 827–844.Glomb, T. M., J. D. Kammeyer-Mueller, and M. Rotundo2004 “Emotional labor demands

and compensating wage dif-ferentials.” Journal of AppliedPsychology, 89: 700–714.

Goldberg, L. R.1999 “A broad-bandwidth, public

domain, personality inventorymeasuring the lower-levelfacets of several five-factormodels.” In I. Mervielde, I.Deary, F. De Fruyt, and F.Ostendorf (eds.), PersonalityPsychology in Europe, 7:

7–28. Tilburg, Netherlands:Tilburg University Press.

Goleman, D.1998 Working with Emotional Intel-

ligence. New York: Bantam.

Graen, G., and M. Uhl-Bien1995 “Relationship-based approach

to leadership: Developmentof leader-member exchange(LMX) theory of leadershipover 25 years: Applying amulti-level multi-domain per-spective.” Leadership Quar-terly, 6: 219–247.

Grandey, A. A.2003 “When ‘the show must go

on’: Surface acting and deepacting as determinants ofemotional exhaustion andpeer-rated service delivery.”Academy of ManagementJournal, 46: 86–96.

24/ ASQ, March 2006




Grandey, A. A., G. M. Fisk, A. S.Mattila, K. J. Jansen, and L. A.Sideman2005 “Is ‘service with a smile’

enough? Authenticity of posi-tive displays during serviceencounters.” OrganizationalBehavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 96: 38–55.

Guion, R. M.1998 Assessment, Measurement,

and Prediction for PersonnelDecisions. Mahwah, NJ: Erl-baum.

Harris, M. M., D. E. Smith, and D.Champagne1995 “A field study of performance

appraisal purpose: Research-versus administrative-basedratings.” Personnel Psycholo-gy, 48: 151–160.

Hatfield, E., J. T. Cacioppo, andR. L. Rapson1992 “Primitive emotion conta-

gion.” In M. S. Clark (ed.),Emotion and Social Behavior:Review of Personality andSocial Psychology, 14:151–177. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Hough, L. M.2003 “Emerging trends and needs

in personality research andpractice: Beyond maineffects.” In M. R. Barrick andA. M. Ryan (eds.), Personalityand Work: 289–352. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Howell, J. M., and B. J. Avolio1993 “Transformational leadership,

transactional leadership, locusof control, and support forinnovation: Key predictors ofconsolidated-business-unitperformance.” Journal ofApplied Psychology, 78:891–902.

Hu, L., and P. M. Bentler1999 “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes

in covariance structure analy-sis: Conventional criteria ver-sus new alternatives.” Struc-tural Equation Modeling, 6:1–55.

Hull, J. G., J. C. Tedlie, and D. A.Lehn1992 “Moderator variables in per-

sonality research: The prob-lem of controlling for plausi-ble alternatives.” Personalityand Social Psychology Bul-letin, 18: 115–117.

Hurtz, G. M., and J. J. Donovan2000 “Personality and job perfor-

mance: The Big Five revisit-ed.” Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 85: 869–879.

Izard, C. E.2001 “Emotional intelligence or

adaptive emotions?” Emo-tion, 1: 249–257.

James, L. R., and J. M. Brett1984 “Mediators, moderators, and

tests for mediation.” Journalof Applied Psychology, 69:

307–321.

Janovics, J., and N. D.Christiansen2001 “Emotional intelligence at the

workplace.” Paper presentedat the annual meeting of theSociety of Industrial andOrganizational Psychology,San Diego, CA.

Jehn, K. A.1997 “A qualitative analysis of con-

flict types and dimensions inorganizational groups.”Administrative Science Quar-terly, 42: 530–557.

Jehn, K. A., and E. A. Mannix2001 “The dynamic nature of con-flict: A longitudinal study ofintragroup conflict and groupperformance.” Academy ofManagement Journal, 44:238–252.

Jensen, A. R.1998 The g Factor: The Science of

Mental Ability. Westport, CT:Praeger/ Greenwood.

Jordan, P. J., N. M. Ashkanasy,C. E. J. Härtel, and G. S. Hooper2002 “Workgroup emotional intelli-

gence: Scale developmentand relationship to team

process effectiveness andgoal focus.” Human ResourceManagement Review, 12:195–214.

Kenny, D. A., D. A. Kashy, and N.Bolger1998 “Data analysis in social psy-

chology.” In D. T. Gilbert andS. T. Fiske (eds.), Handbookof Social Psychology, 4th ed.,2: 233–265. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Lam, L. T., and S. L. Kirby2002 “Is emotional intelligence an

advantage? An exploration ofthe impact of emotional and

general intelligence on individ-ual performance.” Journal ofSocial Psychology, 142:133–143.

Landy, F. J.2005 “Some historical and scientif-

ic issues related to researchin emotional intelligence.”Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 26: 411–424.

Landy, F. J., and J. L. Farr1980 “Performance rating.” Psy-

chological Bulletin, 87:72–107.

Law, K. S., C.-S. Wong, and W. H.Mobley1998 “Toward a taxonomy of multi-

dimensional constructs.”

Academy of ManagementReview, 23: 741–756.

Law, K. S., C.-S. Wong, and L. J.Song2004 “The construct and criterion

validity of emotional intelli-gence and its potential utilityfor management studies.”Journal of Applied Psycholo-gy, 89: 483–496.

Lee, K., and N. J. Allen2002 “Organizational citizenship

behavior and workplacedeviance: The role of affectand cognitions.” Journal ofApplied Psychology, 87:

131–142.

Lerner, J. S., and D. Keltner2001 “Fear, anger, and risk.” Jour-

nal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 81: 146–159.

Liden, R. C., and T. R. Mitchell1989 “Ingratiation in the develop-

ment of leader-memberexchanges.” In P. Rosen (ed.),Impression Management inthe Organization: 343–361.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Locke, E. A.2005 “Why emotional intelligence

is an invalid concept.” Journal

of Organizational Behavior,26: 425–431.

Loewenstein, G., and J. S. Lerner2003 “The role of affect in deci-

sion-making.” In R. Davidson,K. Scherer, and H. Goldsmith(eds.), Handbook of AffectiveSciences: 619–642. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Lopes, P. N., M. Brackett, A.Schütz, I. Sellin, J. Nezlek, and P.Salovey2004 “Emotional intelligence and

daily social interactions.” Per-sonality and Social Psycholo-gy Bulletin, 30: 1018–1034.

Lopes, P. N., P. Salovey, S. Côté,and M. Beers2005 “Emotion regulation abilities

and the quality of social inter-action.” Emotion, 5: 113–118.

25/ ASQ, March 2006





Martocchio, J. J., and T. A. Judge1997 “Relationship between con-

scientiousness and learning inemployee training: Mediatinginfluences of self-deceptionand self-efficacy.” Journal ofApplied Psychology, 82:764–773.

Matthews, G., M. Zeidner, andR. D. Roberts2002 Emotional Intelligence: Sci-

ence and Myth. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.

Mayer, J. D., D. R. Caruso, and P.Salovey2000 “Emotional intelligence meets

traditional standards for anintelligence.” Intelligence, 27:267–298.

Mayer, J. D., and P. Salovey1997 “What is emotional intelli-

gence?” In P. Salovey andD. J. Sluyter (eds.), EmotionalDevelopment and Emotional

Intelligence: 3–31. New York:Basic Books.

Mayer, J. D., P. Salovey, and D. R.Caruso2000 “Models of emotional intelli-

gence.” In R. Sternberg (ed.),Handbook of Intelligence:396–420. New York: Cam-bridge University Press.

2002 Manual for the MSCEITMayer-Salovey-Caruso Emo-tional Intelligence Test. Toron-to, ON: Multi-Health Systems.

2004 “Emotional intelligence: Theo-ry, findings, and implications.”Psychological Inquiry, 15:

197–216.Mayer, J. D., P. Salovey, D. R.Caruso, and G. Sitarenios2003 “Measuring emotional intelli-

gence with the MSCEITV2.0.” Emotion, 3: 97–105.

Maylor, E. A.1993 “Aging and forgetting in

prospective and retrospectivememory tasks.” Psychologyand Aging, 8: 420–428.

McCarthy, J. M., and R. D. Goffin2001 “Improving the validity of let-

ters of recommendation: Aninvestigation of three stan-dardized reference forms.”Military Psychology, 13:199–222.

McCrae, R. R., and P. T. Costa, Jr.1987 “Validation of the five-factor

model of personality acrossinstruments and observers.”Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 52: 81–90.

McCrae, R. R., and O. P. John1992 “An introduction to the five-

factor model and its applica-tions.” Journal of Personality,60: 175–215.

McHenry, J. J., L. M. Hough, J. L.Toquam, M. A. Hanson, and S.Ashworth

1990 “Project A validity results:The relationship between pre-dictor and criterion domains.”Personnel Psychology, 43:333–354.

Mehra, A., M. Kilduff, and D. J.Brass2001 “The social networks of high

and low self-monitors: Impli-cations for workplace perfor-mance.” Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 46: 121–146.

Michaels, E., H. Handfield-Jones,and B. Axelrod2001 The War for Talent. Boston:

Harvard Business School

Press.

Motowidlo, S. J., W. C. Borman,and M. J. Schmit1997 “A theory of individual differ-

ences in task and contextualperformance.” Human Perfor-mance, 10: 71–83.

Motowidlo, S. L., and J. R. VanScotter1994 “Evidence that task perfor-

mance should be distin-guished from contextual per-formance.” Journal of AppliedPsychology, 79: 475–480.

Murphy, K.

1996 “Individual differences andbehavior in organizations:Much more than g.” In K. R.Murphy (ed.), Individual Dif-ferences and Behavior inOrganizations: 3–30. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Neisser, U., G. Boodoo, T. J.Bouchard, Jr., A. W. Boykin, N.Brody, S. J. Ceci, D. F. Halpern,J. C. Loehlin, R. Perloff, R. J.Sternberg, and S. Urbina1996 “Intelligence: Knowns and

unknowns.” American Psy-chologist, 51: 77–101.

Organ, D. W.

1988 Organizational CitizenshipBehavior: The Good SoldierSyndrome. Lexington, MA:Lexington Books/D. C. Heath.

1997 “Organizational citizenshipbehavior: It’s constructcleanup time.” Human Perfor-mance, 10: 85–97.

Paulhus, D. L., D. C. Lysy, andM. S. M. Yik1998 “Self-report measures of

intelligence: Are they usefulas proxy IQ tests?” Journal ofPersonality, 66: 525–554.

Pearce, J. L., and A. E. Randel2004 “Expectations of organization-

al mobility, workplace socialinclusion, and employee jobperformance.” Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 25:81–98.

Petrides, K. V., N. Frederickson,and A. Furnham2004 “The role of trait emotional

intelligence in academic per-formance and deviant behav-ior at school.” Personality andIndividual Differences, 36:277–293.

Rafaeli, A., and R. I. Sutton1987 “Expression of emotion as

part of the work role.” Acade-

my of Management Review,12: 23–37.

Rapisarda, B. A.2002 “The impact of emotional

intelligence on work teamcohesiveness and perfor-mance.” International Journalof Organizational Analysis, 10:363–379.

Robbins, T. L., and A. S. DeNisi1994 “A closer look at interperson-

al affect as a distinct influ-ence on cognitive processingin performance evaluations.”Journal of Applied Psycholo-gy, 79: 341–353.

Roberts, R. D., M. Zeidner, and G.Matthews2001 “Does emotional intelligence

meet traditional standards foran intelligence? Some newdata and conclusions.” Emo-tion, 1: 196–231.

Roth, P. L., and F. S. Switzer III2002 “Outliers and influential

cases: Handling those discor-dant contaminated maverickrogues.” In S. G. Rogelberg(ed.), The Blackwell Hand-book of Research Methods inIndustrial and OrganizationalPsychology: 297–309. Oxford:Blackwell.

Rotundo, M., and P. R. Sackett2002 “The relative importance of

task, citizenship, and counter-productive performance toglobal ratings of job perfor-mance: A policy-capturingapproach.” Journal of AppliedPsychology, 87: 66–80.

26/ ASQ, March 2006




Rynes, S. L., B. Gerhart, and L.Parks2005 “Personnel psychology: Per-

formance evaluation and payfor performance.” AnnualReview of Psychology 2005:571–600.

Saarni, C.

1999 The Development of Emotion-al Competence. New York:Guilford Press.

Schaie, K. W.2001 “Emotional intelligence: Psy-

chometric status and develop-mental characteristics—Com-ment on Roberts, Zeidner,and Matthews (2001).” Emo-tion, 1: 243–248.

Schmidt, F. L., and J. E. Hunter1998 “The validity and utility of

selection methods in person-nel psychology: Practical andtheoretical implications of 85years of research findings.”

Psychological Bulletin, 124:262–274.

2000 “Select on intelligence.” InE. A. Locke (ed.), The Black-well Handbook of Organiza-tional Principles: 3–14.Oxford: Blackwell.

Schulte, M. J., M. J. Ree, and T. R.Carretta2004 “Emotional intelligence: Not

much more than g and per-sonality.” Personality and Indi-vidual Differences, 37:1059–1068.

Seo, M.-G., L. Feldman Barrett,and J. Bartunek

2004 “The role of affective experi-ence in work motivation.”Academy of ManagementJournal, 29: 423–439.

Slaski, M., and S. Cartwright2002 “Health, performance and

emotional intelligence: Anexploratory study of retailmanagers.” Stress andHealth, 16: 63–68.

Smith, G. A., and G. Stanley1987 “Comparing subtest profiles

of g loading and correlationswith RT measures.” Intelli-gence, 11: 291–298.

Sosik, J. J., and L. E. Megerian1999 “Understanding leader emo-

tional intelligence and perfor-mance.” Group and Organiza-tion Management, 24:367–390.

Sparrowe, R. T., R. C. Liden, S. J.Wayne, and M. L. Kraimer2001 “Social networks and the per-

formance of individuals andgroups.” Academy of Man-agement Journal, 44:316–325.

Spearman, C.

1904 “’General intelligence,’ objec-tively determined and mea-sured.” American Journal ofPsychology, 15: 201–293.

Sue-Chan, C., and G. P. Latham2004 “The situational interview as

a predictor of academic andteam performance: A study ofthe mediating effects of cog-nitive ability and emotionalintelligence.” InternationalJournal of Selection andAssessment, 12: 312–320.

Sutton, R. I.1991 “Maintaining norms about

expressed emotions: The

case of bill collectors.”Administrative Science Quar-terly, 36: 245–268.

Sy, T., S. Côté, and R. Saavedra2005 “The contagious leader:

Impact of the leader’s moodon the mood of the groupmembers, group affectivetone, and group processes.”Journal of Applied Psycholo-gy, 90: 295–305.

Tett, R. P., K. E. Fox, and A. Wang2005 “Development and validation

of a self-report measure ofemotional intelligence as amultidimensional trait

domain.” Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin,31: 859–888.

Tett, R. P., D. N. Jackson, and M.Rothstein1991 “Personality measures as pre-

dictors of job performance: Ameta-analytic review.” Per-sonnel Psychology, 44:703–742.

Totterdell, P., and B. Parkinson1999 “Use and effectiveness of

self-regulation strategies forimproving mood in a group oftrainee teachers.” Journal ofOccupational Health Psychol-

ogy, 4: 219–232.

Turnage, J. J., and P. M.Muchinsky1984 “A comparison of the predic-

tive validity of assessmentcenter evaluations versus tra-ditional measures in forecast-ing supervisory job perfor-mance: Interpretiveimplications of criterion distor-tion for the assessment para-digm.” Journal of AppliedPsychology, 69: 595–602.

United States Department ofLabor2001 O*NET 5.1 database.

Retrieved May 1, 2004, fromhttp://www.onetcenter.org/ database.html.

Van Rooy, D. L., and C.Viswesvaran2004 “Emotional intelligence: A

meta-analytic investigation ofpredictive validity and nomo-logical net.” Journal of Voca-tional Behavior, 65: 71–95.

Viswesvaran, C., and D. S. Ones2002 “Agreements and disagree-

ments on the role of generalmental ability (GMA) in indus-trial, work, and organizationalpsychology.” Human Perfor-mance, 15: 212–231.

Viswesvaran, C., D. S. Ones, andF. L. Schmidt1996 “Comparative analysis of the

reliability of job performanceratings.” Journal of AppliedPsychology, 81: 557–574.

Wayne, S. J., and S. A. Green1993 “The effects of leader-mem-

ber exchange on employeecitizenship and impressionmanagement behavior.”Human Relations, 46:1431–1440.

Wedeck, J.1947 “The relationship between

personality and ‘psychologicalability’.” British Journal ofPsychology, 37: 133–151.

Williams, L. J., and S. E.Anderson1991 “Job satisfaction and organi-

zational commitment as pre-dictors of organizational citi-zenship and in-role

behaviors.” Journal of Man-agement, 17: 601–617.

Wong, C.-S., and K. S. Law2002 “The effects of leader and fol-

lower emotional intelligenceon performance and attitude:An exploratory study.” Lead-ership Quarterly, 13: 243–274.

27/ ASQ, March 2006





Wong, C.-S., K. S. Law, and P.-M.Wong2004 “Development and validation

of a forced choice emotionalintelligence measure for Chi-nese respondents in HongKong.” Asia Pacific Journal ofManagement, 21: 535–559.

Zeidner, M., G. Matthews, andR. D. Roberts2004 “Emotional intelligence in the

workplace: A critical review.”Applied Psychology: An Inter-national Journal, 53: 371–399.


Ei n Work Performance

Documents

Transcript of Ei n Work Performance