Investigating The Impact of Emotional Intelligence …ijens.org/Vol 11 I 03/114903-5757...

International Journal of Engineering & Technology IJET-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 03 58

I J E N S NS @ June 2011 IJENSIJE-IJET 7575-903411

Investigating The Impact of Emotional Intelligence On Technology Learning

Abeer Hmoud Ali Al‐Faouri

Management Information Systems Department, Petra University, Amman, Jordan

ABSTRACT

This study aims to investigate the impact of interpersonal self‐awareness, self‐confidence, and self‐

discipline, as well as intrapersonal empathy, optimism, and social responsibility‐ emotional

intelligence (EI) dimensions on technology learning process levels (TLP).

An empirical study with a questionnaire, was conducted on 124 voluntary respondents from 10 IT

organizations in Jordan. The findings indicated that the EI intrapersonal sub dimensions were

responsible for 30% in variation of the TLP basic level. Only the self‐discipline variable could predict

average, advanced, and world‐class TLP levels in comparison with optimism which significantly

predicted the TLP levels except for the average one, which was predicted by the social responsibility

variable.

This study is the first study to investigate the relationship between EI and TLP levels. The outcomes

provide an empirical support for an interesting parallel between the both. Moreover, the practical

implications of this study suggest considering EI competences when selecting and promoting the IT

staff; and when designing the TLP training programs.

Keywords‐ Emotional Intelligence, Interpersonal Intelligence, Intrapersonal Intelligence,

Technology Learning Levels.

I. INTRODUCTION

In today's dynamic and complex business environment, organizations need to reinvent themselves to succeed [7], [49], [24]. Consequently, investment in IT is viewed as a strategic means of organizational renewal [49], along with improved organizational performance [22], [49], and competitive advantage. Thus, other supplemental effective efforts should be devoted to change management [35], and organizational learning in general and technology learning process in particular in order to identify the technological threats and opportunities in the rapidly changing environment [25]. Empirical studies suggest that organizational performance and learning are more effective if enacted by emotionally intelligent employees [7], [37], [1] who tend to achieve outcomes that benefit others as well as themselves [33]. Unfortunately, high-technology workers are generally perceived as a staff with high intellectual skills but with low interpersonal and intrapersonal skills [34]. Others ensure that American business annually loses between 5.6 and 16.8 billion dollars due to the inconsistency in following guidelines to promote emotional intelligence [9]. There is relatively less research related to the influence of emotional intelligence on technology learning. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to investigate the impact of both emotional intelligence intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions on technology learning levels including the basic, average, advanced, and world- class levels.

This paper is organized as follows. The next section introduces the concepts of technology learning concept and its four levels as well as emotional intelligence and its key dimensions, followed by the development of



the research hypotheses. The research method is presented in the third section. Data analysis and the results of this study are discussed in the fourth and the fifth sections respectively. Finally, the study’s implications and limitations are summarized in the sixth section.

II. THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

TECHNOLOGY LEARNING

Basically, learning is acquiring new knowledge, behaviors, skills, values, preferences and/or understanding, and may involve synthesizing different types of information [41] that can be retained and used when needed [42]. The need for technology learning stems from the fact that technological knowledge options available to a firm represent a critical factor [16],[30] in shaping the firm’s technological strategy in the light of the exploitable opportunities as well as the technological threats it may face in the future [4], [30].

According to Boucher et al. (2003), technology learning process (TLP) is defined as an intentional or an

unconscious initiated process of technology scanning, monitoring, and valuation. Consequently, two main phases in TLP literature were distinguished. Namely, the scanning and the monitoring phases [29], [53]. Through effective technology scanning, firms will not be surprised when new technologies appear. However, they will be able to develop technological awareness [30]. This shows that TLP is used to understand the systematic recognition, the observation of new and/or existing technologies in addition to the evaluation of their significance and potential for the competitiveness of the company [25]. Others agree that the accumulation of technological capability does not only result from experience but also from scanning, monitoring and keeping track of global developments aim to increase the companies' ability to respond to new pressures and opportunities [8], [4].

According to Dabnoon (2008), TLP is classified into four levels including the basic level, which is the lowest level, along with the average, advanced, and the world-class levels. The latter is considered the highest. The basic level represents poor factors that companies usually concentrate on in order to learn about the market changes and some technological developments such as building external co-operations, participating in some associations, and analyzing several government sources and business literature [25]. The average level is concerned with informal learning methods. This may include establishment of informal discussion networks, availability of internet and intranet, application of technology roadmaps, etc [25]. On the other hand, TLP advanced level is essentially characterized by the need to support R&D department, providing support and commitment of top management, providing training programs, and coordinating between human resource planning and learning strategy [25]. The TLP world-class level is seen as a relative challenge to be accomplished. This level requires the companies to establish centralized and decentralized units, and to launch projects of limited duration in order to learn about advanced technologies and overall market changes. In addition, collaboration with universities, research institutes, start-ups and leading companies as well as arrangement of innovation workshops are also needed. Both this classification, and the items representing each level are adopted in this research – see tables: II, and I.

Reviewing literature declares the importance of TLP and the role it plays to increase the organizations’ effectiveness. Consequently, we discuss the once of intelligences referred to as (Emotional intelligence) and its potential role in advancing the TLP.



EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE

The emotional intelligence (EI) phrase has become popular since the 1990s when John Mayer and Peter Salovey first coined the phrase ‘emotional intelligence’ [23]. According to Anzieu & Martin (1994), emotions were first associated with organizations when early group dynamics theorists including Mayo and Lewin introduced the concepts of human relations and social change in the workplace and declared their impacts on organizational performance. Among the leading factors to EI prominence was the shift from a manufacturing to a service sector focus which reveals a greater need for effective interpersonal skills, and engaging minds with hearts [2], [43]. Goleman (1995) believes that IQ contributes around 20 percent to the factors that govern success, while EI accounts for the remaining 80 percent. Therefore, many recommended that EI, alongside the socio-cultural cues that influence emotional display, should be learned and understood within the context of the workplace [27].

Emotional intelligence has been an interesting topic for a number of authors. For example, Salovey & Mayer (1990) considered EI a subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions. It is used to distinguish them and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions. Robbins and Judge (2009) defined EI as the ability to detect and manage emotional cues and information. Goleman (1998) viewed EI as the capacity for recognizing our own feelings and other’s for the sake of managing emotions in ourselves and in our relationships. In addition, EI is defined as the ability to understand and trust our own emotions as well as the capacity to read the emotions of others, so that appropriate action can be taken [43], [5]. Reviewing the mentioned definitions leads to conclude that EI is related to understanding our feelings and others’ feelings so as to achieve a better guidance in the process of thinking for ourselves and the others and behaving respectively. EI is also discussed as multidimensional concept that encompasses complementary dimensions. For example, Goleman (1995) and Robbins (2007) listed five dimensions of emotional intelligence including self-awareness, self-regulation (management), self- motivation, empathy, and social skills. Whereas Cook et al., (2004) viewed EI as ‘people-focused’ and based on two major intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions that were adopted in this study for their clearness and comprehensiveness. In the following section, some light will be shed on these EI dimensions and their influences on technology learning levels.

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE DIMENSIONS AND TECHNOLOGY LEARNING LEVELS

According to Cook et al. (2004), emotions play the driving force behind all human behavior. Robbins and Judge (2009) argue that people who know their own emotions might be more effective in doing their jobs. Consequently, this increases the importance of understanding EI and its influence on the different aspects of organizational practices such as organizational learning and technology learning in particular.

Basically, EI is based on two major dimensions, which are the intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions. According to Cook et al., (2004), the intrapersonal dimension focuses on the self, and includes three sub dimensions, namely, self-awareness, self-confidence, and self-discipline. Self-awareness reflects the importance of recognizing one’s own feelings, and realizing one’s own strengths and weaknesses [13]. In his study, Goleman (1998) proved that emotional self-awareness is crucial in financial planners’ job performance. Others found that accurate self-assessment was the hallmark of superior performance among several hundred



managers from twelve different organizations [39]. From another perspective, a variety of studies declared that self-confidence has a positive impact on performance. For example, Boyatzis (1982) and others [48]

found that among supervisors, managers, and executives; a high degree of self-confidence distinguished the best from the average performers. Similarly based on his analysis of more than 300 top-level executives from fifteen global companies, Spencer (1997) concluded that self-confidence was a factor among the emotional competencies that distinguished stares from the average. According to Cook, Macaula and Coldicott (2004), self-discipline which represents the third sub dimension deals with controlling one's anger as well as managing frustration and impulse effectively. Lusch and Serpkenci (1990) showed that the most successful store managers were those best able to handle stress in a retail chain.

Although the reviewing literature did not refer to studies that explicitly investigate the influence of EI on technology learning, the researcher refers to extensive related literature review as a step aiming to fill some of the existing gap in the field investigated.

In general, emotional intelligence is assumed facilitate individual adaptation and change [36]. Other

research areas showed that emotion and learning are closely associated with each other [2], and that learning success does not only flow from rational capability but also from emotional capability development [17]. In the learning environment as an example, many educators became increasingly aware of the fact that students' emotional intelligence should be incorporated and embraced in the classroom [35] because confusing or hurtful feelings cannot and will not lead to effective learning [26]. Elias et al. (1999), also emphasized that emotional well-being is not a positively predictive of academic achievement but also of satisfactory and productive experiences in the world of work. In the business environment, Cherniss and Adler (2000) state that rapid technological change and diverse workforce make emotional intelligence so vital for organizational effectiveness. Sparrow and Knight (2006) concluded that emotional intelligence leads to effective performance [15] where intrapersonal intelligence is needed for effective self-management, interpersonal intelligence is needed for effective relationship management, and both lead to effective overall performance. Based on a sample of 280 employees from an Indian company, EI was found to be positively and significantly related to the three phases of OL - innovation, implementation, and stabilization - and with the five mechanisms of OL including experimentation, mutuality, planning, uses of temporary systems, and competency mechanisms [47]. Similarly, others found that employees with high level of emotional intelligence show higher level of readiness to create and innovate than those with lower level of emotional intelligence [3]. In his study, Hjerto, (2009) proved that emotional intelligence dimension which strongly contributes to learning is related the ability of using one’s own emotions, and the self-emotional appraisal ability [21].

Thus, the researcher elicited the first main hypothesis of this study as follows:

H1: Intrapersonal EI dimensions: self awareness, self confidence, and self-discipline positively influence technology learning levels: basic, average, advanced, and world-class level.

Four sub hypotheses can be generated from the previous main hypothesis as follows:

H1a: Self-awareness, self-confidence, and self-discipline positively influence the basic level of technology learning.

H1b: Self-awareness, self-confidence, and self-discipline positively influence the average level of technology learning.



H1c: Self-awareness, self-confidence, and self-discipline positively influence the advanced level of technology learning.

H1d: Self-awareness, self-confidence, and self-discipline positively influence the world-class level of technology learning.

The interpersonal dimension of EI focusing on others has a deep understanding of others’ emotions, finds ways to motivate them and maintain harmonious and effective relationships [43]. This dimension encompasses three sub dimensions including empathy, optimism, and social responsibility [43]. The empathy competence gives people a perceptive awareness of others’ emotions, and the ability to read others’ needs [13]. Empathic strategy also distinguished the star sales performers with a higher ability to identify a customer’s tacit needs from average ones with lower empathy competence. It also matches the former with products or services [26]. In another study, Pilling and Eroglu (1994) found that skill in empathy correlates with effective sales on large and small retailers. Steele (1997) concluded that empathy competence helps in reading people accurately as well as avoiding resorting to stereotyping that might lead to anxiety and performance deficits. Moreover, empathizing was also crucial to the conflict management skills and to effective win-win negotiation in manufacturer-retailer relationship [14].

Optimism is the ability to look at the brighter side of life [38]. People who are optimistic are usually those with a real sense of passion who are able to share their passions and raise a state of infection that motivates people to be with them [43]. A study found that optimism was one of the important emotional intelligence competencies that most successful debt collectors scored higher in [45].

The final sub dimension is social responsibility, which represents the ability to demonstrate oneself as a cooperative, contributing, and constructive member of one’s social group [38]. Cook et al. (2004), argue that people who have strong social responsibility have a focus on others' serious problems, and may gain new perspectives on their own problems either through internal and external inter-organizational collaboration [43].

Current researchers indicate the importance of teamwork and assure the crucial need for emotional intelligence, and learning for both managers and employees [43], [44], [18]. Robbins and Judge (2009) suggested that people who are good at reading others' emotions might be more effective in performing their jobs. Sweeney (1999) found that a deficit in the ability to work cooperatively with peers was, in one survey, the most common reason for firing managers. Goleman's research (1998) indicated that an individual must be able to manage emotions at work and interact successfully with the public to produce positive work outcomes. More specifically, other studies suggested that the emotional climate deeply affects organizational dynamics, which facilitates the learning processes [52]. Jordan (2004) argued that each organizational learning discipline including personal mastery, mental models, systems thinking, team learning, and building a shared vision for the organization – could be linked to specific emotional intelligence abilities including (a) emotional awareness, (b) emotional facilitation, (c) emotional knowledge, and (d) emotional regulation. Thus, the second main hypothesis of this study is:

H2: Interpersonal EI dimensions: empathy, optimism, and social responsibility positively influence technology learning levels including the basic, average, advanced, and world-class level.

From the previous main hypothesis, four sub hypotheses can be generated as follows:



H2a: Empathy, optimism, and social responsibility positively influence the basic level of technology learning.

H2b: Empathy, optimism, and social responsibility positively influence the average level of technology learning.

H2c: Empathy, optimism, and social responsibility positively influence the advanced level of technology learning.

H2d: Empathy, optimism, and social responsibility positively influence the world-class level of technology learning.

Figure 1 shows the suggested model that was employed in this study.

III. THE STUDY AND METHOD

124 respondents included CEOs, CIOs, systems analysts, technical support specialists, network administrators, and programmers represent different managerial levels (10% were top management) from ten IT organizations in Jordan participated in this study. 75% of these participants were male. The ages of 79.8% range from 31-40 years. 71.8% have 10-14 years of experience in their current jobs. 43.5% holds Bachelors degree. All participants were asked to complete a questionnaire to assess the main and sub dimensions of their emotional intelligence, and their organizations' technology learning levels within two months period in 2011. The questionnaire was pre-tested with several respondents in three different organizations.

Emotional intelligence construct was measured using Cook et al., (2004) scale that includes 21 items with

anchors ranging from (1- very low; 5 – very high). The scale is divided into six sections representing the two main dimensions of EI including both intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions - and their six sub dimensions, which are self-awareness, self-confidence, self-discipline, empathy, optimism, and social responsibility as indicated in tables: I, II.

Technology learning levels were measured using Dabnoon's scale (2008). This scale encompasses 46 items with anchors ranging from (1- almost never; 5 - almost always) distributed into four areas representing the four levels of technology learning which are the basic, average, advanced, and world-class level as tables III, IV indicate.

As indicated in tables I-IV, reliability scores for all the study's constructs have values greater than 70. Thus, they provide adequate levels of reliability [51]. In addition, factor analyses were also conducted with SPSS 17.0 using the principal components extraction method and Varimax rotation declared that items' loadings within each construct display desirable convergent validity (loading high on that construct) and discriminant validity (low cross-loadings) as tables I-IV demonstrate. The means and standard deviations for each construct are also indicated in these tables.



IV. DATA ANALYSIS

All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS 17. Initial tests began by performing bivariate correlations in order to explore the initial relationships among variables measured in the study. This was then followed by conducting a series of regressions analyses where each of the four technology learning level was regressed in turn against each of the main emotional intelligence dimensions measures.

V. RESULTS

Correlation analysis was used as an initial examination of the relationships among the variables studied. Table V. summarizes the intercorrelation among all the variables used in the study.

Though several variables are related, table V. indicates no severe problems of multicolinearity as total intrapersonal EI and its sub dimensions showed minor correlation with Interpersonal EI and its sub dimensions offer further support for the predominantly independent nature of these two dimensions of EI. So, none of the related variables exceeded the value of 0.60. Total EI was significantly correlated with its two main dimensions: intrapersonal EI (r _ 0.889, p _ 0.01), and interpersonal EI (r _ 0.914, p _ 0.01). Total intrapersonal EI was significantly correlated with its three sub dimensions: self- awareness (r _ 0.625, p _ 0.01), self-confidence (r _ 0.671, p _ 0.01), and self-discipline (r _ 0.735, p _ 0.01). Similarly, interpersonal EI was also significantly correlated with its three sub dimensions: empathy (r _ 0.781, p _ 0.01), optimism (r _ 0.809, p _ 0.01), and social responsibility (r _ 0.822, p _ 0.01).

The dependent variable technology learning also correlated with its sub dimensions: basic level (r _ 0.767, p _ 0.01), average level (r _ 0.757, p _ 0.01), advanced level (r _0.888, p _ 0.01), and world-class level (r _ 0.827, p _ 0.01). Both of the total intrapersonal EI and the total interpersonal EI also significantly correlated with TLP (r _ 0.573, p _ 0.01), (r _ 0.358, p _ 0.01) respectively. The sub dimensions of each EI also significantly correlated with the total TLP.

The results in table VI. reveal that there is a joint influence of intrapersonal EI dimensions: self-awareness, self-confidence, and self-discipline on the basic level of TLP F (3, 120) = 17,09; p<0.05 with R =0.55 and R2= 0.30. This implies that the three variables accounted for 30% variations in the basic level of TLP. Thus, the H1a hypothesis was confirmed.

The results also show the contribution of each of the variables and reveal that each of intrapersonal EI dimensions contributed significantly as can be seen in figures (2,3,4).

On the other hand, the results of the multiple regressions in Table VI. partially supported H1b, H1c, and H1d hypotheses.

Although the results indicate that there are joint influences of intrapersonal EI dimensions which are self-awareness, self-confidence, and self-discipline on average, advanced, and world-class TLP levels; only self-discipline variable was found to contribute significantly as can be seen in figures (5,6,7).

Similarly, reviewing regression analyses results presented in table VII. Indicate that despite the joint influences of interpersonal EI dimensions including empathy, optimism, and social responsibility of each TLP levels including basic, average, advanced, and the world-class level, the results showed that neither empathy



nor social responsibility predict basic, advanced, and world-class TLP levels. Optimism is the only interpersonal EI dimension which significantly predicts basic, advanced, and world-class TLP levels as figures (8,9,10) show.

Social responsibility contributed significantly to the average level of TLP (see Fig. 11). Thus, the second main hypothesis and its four sub hypotheses –H2a, H2b, H2c, and H2d – were partially supported.

VI. DISCUSSION

The main purpose of this study was to examine the influence of EI dimensions on TLP levels. The study showed that intrapersonal EI dimensions including self-awareness, self-confidence, and self-discipline account for 30% in variation on the basic level of TLP. This indicates that employees with a good ability to understand and trust their own feelings and preferences, to have belief in themselves, and to be self-motivated seem to have higher basic TLP abilities such as dealing effectively with stressful situations, cooperating with suppliers, customers/users, stockbrokers, and participating in activities of professional associations than employees with low abilities on these areas. Results from this sample were consistent with those obtained by Boyatzis (1982), Goleman (1998), Lusch & Serpkenci (1990), and others [3], [48]. Findings also indicated that despite the joint influences EI dimensions have on TLP levels, only self-discipline variable can predict average, advanced, and the world-class TLP levels. The latter result lends its support from previous studies such as Serpkenci & Lusch's (1990) who showed that the most successful store managers were those beset able to handle stress. The finding is also consistent with other studies, which argued that emotional regulation could be linked to specific organizational learning disciplines [33], [3], [17], [47]. Thus, we may assume that flexible and adaptable employees with an ability to manage their anger and impulse are suited to average, advanced, and the world-class TLP activities such as participating in the company's strategy making, attending innovation workshops, and acquiring up-to-date research and development tools.

In addition, optimism was the only interpersonal EI dimension, which significantly predicts TLP levels except the average level, which has been found to be predicted by the social responsibility variable. The latter findings are also consistent with Robbins’ (2007) who assured the importance of optimism, and with others who assumed that social responsibility and focusing on others lead to gaining new perspectives on problems at both intraorganizational [1], [43] and interorganizational levels [43]. Consequently, the results totally supported H1a, and partially supported the other hypothesized relationships.

The major contribution of the study stems from being the first study to investigate the relationship between emotional intelligence dimensions and technology learning levels. Therefore, the current results add to a growing body of research that presents some empirical support and evidence of an interesting parallel between TLP Levels and EI dimensions.

Some limitations are associated with this study. The first limitation concerns self-report ratings. Although the researcher does not suspect that method bias significantly affected the pattern of results in this study, the use of additional data collection strategies or outcome measures would have strengthened the validity of the study findings. The relatively small sample size of 124 should be also noted. The population upon which this study is based was drawn from ten IT organizations in Jordan. Therefore, the extent to which the results found here can be generalized beyond this particular sample to other organizations is unknown. In addition, the



failure to find any significant relationships between some emotional intelligence dimensions and technology learning levels might be due to the probability that they may be mediated by other factors such as emotional climate within the organization. This factor deserves to be investigated in a future study utilizing other analytic techniques such as structural equation modeling.

VII. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

In conclusion, the research evidence to date has proved that emotional intelligence has the potential to predict a range of technology learning levels. By linking emotional intelligence to the organizational and technology learning principles, we can get a deeper insight into how to make technology change management programs more effective. Another implication relates to considering emotional intelligence competences when selecting, promoting IT managers and employees besides the cases of designing and implementing specialized EI and TLP workshops and training programs.

REFERENCES

[1] A. Carmeli, and Z. Josman, "The relationship among emotional intelligence, task performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors," Human Performance, vol. 19(4), pp. 403-419, 2006.

[2] A. Damasino, Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, And The Human Brain. New York: Putnam’s, 1994. [3] A. Suliman, and F. Al-Shaikh, "Emotional intelligence at work: links to conflict and innovation," Employee Relations, 29, pp.

208-220, 2007. [4] B. Bowonder, and T. Miyake, "Technology management: a knowledge ecology perspective," International Journal of

Technology Management, vol. 19 (7/8), pp. 662 – 684, 2000. [5] B. Meyer, and T., Fletcher, " Emotional intelligence: A theoretical overview and implications for research and professional

practice in sport psychology," Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, vol. 19(1), pp. 1-15, 2007. [6] B. Pilling and S. Eroglu, "An empirical examination of the impact of salesperson empathy and professionalism and

merchandise saleability on retail buyers," Evaluation. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, vol. 14 (1), pp. 45-58, 1994.

[7] B. Scott-Ladd and C. C. Chan, "Emotional intelligence and participation in decision-making: strategies for promoting organizational learning and change," Strategic Change, vol. 13(2), pp.95 – 105, 2004, doi: 10.1002/jsc.668.

[8] C. Aditiawan, and Zulkiflimansyah, "The dynamic of technological accumulation at the microeconomic level: lessons from indonesia -a case study," Asia Pacific Management Review, vol. 9 (6), pp 367-408, 2003.

[9] C. Cherniss and M. Adler, Promoting Emotional Intelligence in Organizations. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development, 2000.

[10] C. Steel, "A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance," American Psychologist, vol. 52(6), pp.613-629, 1997.

[11] D. Anzieu, and J.-Y. Martin, La dynamique Des Groupes Restreints. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1994. [12] D. Goleman, Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books, 1995. [13] D. Goleman, Working With Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books, 1998. [14] D. Goleman, "Leadership that gets results," Harvard Business Review, March-April, 2000. [15] D. Rosete, and J. Ciarrochi, "Emotional intelligence and its relationship to workplace performance," Leadership and

Organization Development Journal, vol. 26(5), pp. 388-399, 2005. [16] G., Schuh, M., Hilgers, J., Schröder, and J., Saxler, " Success Factors in Technology Management," Proceeding of 15th

International conference on management of technology (IAMOT), pp. 147-156, 2006. [17] H. Hopfl, and S. Linstead, "Learning to feel and feeling to learn: emotion and learning in organisations," Management

Learning, 28, pp. 5-12, 1997. [18] J. Lyons, and T. Schneider, "The influence of emotional intelligence on performance," Personality and Individual Differences,

vol. 39(4), pp. 693-703, 2005. [19] J. Mayer, and P. Salovey, Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Educational Implications. New York: Basic

Books, 1997. [20] J. Scott and S. Walczak, "Cognitive engagement with a multimedia ERP training tool: Assessing computer self-efficacy and

technology acceptance," Information & Management, vol. 46(4), pp.221-232, 2009. [21] K. Hjertø, "The relationship between emotional intelligence and learning outcomes, and the mediating role of emotional



conflict, 2009. " http://brage.bibsys.no/hhe/bitstream/URN:NBN:no-bibsys_brage_11551/1/ICSI_Hjerto%202009_EI.pdf. [22] K. Laudon and J. Laudon, Management Information Systems, 11/E, Prentice Hall, 2010. [23] L. Spencer and S. Spencer, Competence at Work: Models for Superior Performance. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1993. [24] L. Spencer, D. McClelland and S. Kelner, Competency Assessment Methods: History and State of The Art. Boston:

Hay/McBer, 1997. [25] M. Dabnoon, Development of a Measurement for Technology Learning Process (TLP). PhD thesis, Dublin City University,

2008. [26] M., Elias, S. Tobias and B. Friedlander, Emotionally Intelligent Parenting: Raising a Self-Disciplined, Responsible, and

Socially Skilled Child. New York: Random House, 1999. [27] N. Clarke, "Developing emotional intelligence through workplace learning: Findings from a case study in healthcare," Human

Resource Development International, vol. 9(4), pp. 447- 465, 2006. [28] N. Ashkanasy, and M. Dasborough, "Emotional awareness and emotional intelligence in leadership teaching," Journal of

Education for Business, (79), pp 18-22, 2003. [29] N. Schutte, E, Schuettpelz and J. Malouff, "Emotional intelligence and task performance," Imagination, Cognition, and

Personality, 20, pp.347-354, 2001. [30] N. Shehabuddeen, R. Phaal, and D. Probert, "Technology scanning process: an exploration of influencing factors".

Proceedings of IAMOT 2001, Lausanne, Switzerland, March 19-22, 2001. [31] O. Herriford, High-Technology Organizational Culture And Emotional Intelligence. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Phoenix,

September, 2002. [32] P. Bucher, B. Birkenmeier, H. Brodbeck, and J. Escher, "Management principles for evaluating and introducing disruptive

technologies; the case of nanotechnology in Switzerland," R &D Management, vol.33 (2), pp.149–165, 2003. [33] P. Jordan, "Dealing with organizational change: can emotional intelligence enhance organizational learning?" International

Journal of Organisational Behaviour, vol. 8 (1), pp.456-471, 2004, ISSN 1440-5377. [34] P. Salovey, and J. D. Mayer, "Emotional intelligence," Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9, pp.185-211, 1990. [35] P. Sweeney, "Teaching new hires to feel at home", New York Times, February 14, 1999. [36] Q. Huy, "Emotional capability, emotional intelligence, and radical change," The Academy of Management Review, 24, pp.

325-345, 1999. [37] R. Abraham, "Emotional competence as antecedent to performance: A contingency framework," Genetic Social and General

Psychology Monographs, vol. 130(2), pp. 117-145, 2004. [38] R. Bar-On, The BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): Technical manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems,

1997. [39] R. Boyatzis, The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1982. [40] R. Lusch, and R. Serpkenci, "Personal differences, job tension, job outcomes, and store performance: A study of retail

managers," Journal of Marketing, vol. 54(1), pp.85-101, 1990. [41] R. Phillips, C. McNaught, and G. Kennedy , "Towards a generalised conceptual framework for learning: the learning

environment, learning processes and learning outcomes (LEPO) framework". Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, pp. 2495-2504, 2010. Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

[42] R. Saljo, Learning in the learner's perspective. I. Some common-sense conceptions, Reports from the Institute of Education, University of Gothenburg, 76, 1979.

[43] S. Cook, S. Macaula, and H. Coldicott, Change Management Excellence: Using the Five Intelligencies for Successful Organizational Change. London: Sterling, VA: Kogan, 2004.

[44] S. Cote, and C. Miners, "Emotional intelligence, cognitive intelligence, and job performance," Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 51(1), pp. 1-28, (2006).

[45] S. Robbins and T. A. Judge, Essentials of Organizational Behavior (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2009. [46] S. Robbins and T. A. Judge, Organizational behavior. (12th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2007. [47] S. Singh, "Role of emotional intelligence in organisational learning: An empirical study," Singapore Management Review,

vol. 29(2), pp. 55-74, 2007. [48] T, Sy, S., Tram, and L., O'Hara, "Relation of employee and manager emotional intelligence to job satisfaction and

performance," Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 68(3), 461-473, 2006. [49] T. Byrd, J. P. Pitts, A. M. Adrian and N. W. Davidson, "Examination of a path model relating information technology

infrastructure with firm performance," Journal of Business Logistics, vol. 29(2), pp.161-187, 2008. [50] T. Sparrow and A. Knight, EI Applied: The Importance of Attitudes in Developing Emotional Intelligence. England: John

Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2006. [51] U. Sekaran, Research Methods For Business (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2003. [52] V. Tran, "The role of the emotional climate in learning organizations," The Learning Organisation, 5, pp. 99-103, 1998. [53] W. B. Ashton, B. R. Kinzey, and M. E. Gunn, "A structured approach for monitoring science and technology developments,"

International Journal of Technology Management, vol. 6 (1/2), pp. 91-111, 1991.



Fig. (1): Suggested Research Model

Fig. (2): The Impact of Self-Discipline on TLP Basic Level

Intrapersonal EI

Self- Awareness,

Self- Confidence

Self- Discipline

Basic Level

Interpersonal EI

Empathy

Optimism

Social Responsibility

Average Level

Advanced Level

World‐Class Level

H1a

H1b

H1c

H1d

H2a

H2b

H2c

H2d



Fig. (3): The Impact of Self-Awareness on TLP Basic Level

Fig. (4): The Impact of Self-Confidence on TLP Basic Level



Fig. (5): The Impact of Self-Discipline on TLP Average Level

Fig. (6): The Impact of Self-Discipline on TLP Advanced Level



Fig. (7): The Impact of Self-Discipline on TLP World-Class Level

Fig. (8): The Impact of Optimism on TLP Basic Level



Fig. (9): The Impact of Optimism on TLP Advanced Level

Fig. (10): The Impact of Optimism on TLP World-Class Level



Fig. (11): The Impact of Social Responsibility on TLP Average Level

Table II. Independent Factors: Intrapersonal EI sub-dimensions and items with loadings

Factor/ Construct Item Factor Loading

Self-Awareness KMO: 0. 655 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity : Approx. Chi-Square: 50.780 df 3 Sig 0.000 Eigenvalues (Variance Explained): 59. 419 Mean: 4. 401 Standard Deviation: 0. 512 Alpha Cronpach: 0.701

Understanding and trusting your own feelings and preferences.

0.785

Recognizing why you feel that way. 0.783

Recognizing how your feelings impact on yourself and others.

0.743

Self- Confidence KMO: 0. 546 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity : Approx. Chi-Square: 25. 897 df 6 Sig. 0. 000 Eigenvalues (Variance Explained): 38. 332 Mean: 4. 466 Standard Deviation: 0. 411 Alpha Cronpach: 0.721

Having belief in yourself 0.634

Being self motivated. 0.636

Having a style that is assertive and ‘win–win’. .638

Being happy to make decisions alone and not being dependent on others.

0.727

Self-Discipline KMO: 0 . 611 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity : Approx. Chi-Square 64. 872 Df 6 Sig. 0. 000 Eigenvalues (Variance Explained): 46. 164 Mean: 4. 420 Standard Deviation: 0. 544 Alpha Cronpach: 0.754

Dealing effectively with stressful situations. 0. 814

Managing your anger and impulse. 0. 687

Being flexible and adaptable. 0. 771

Creating a balance between rational and emotional considerations.

0. 924



Table III. Independent Factors: Interpersonal EI sub-dimensions and items with loadings


Empathy KMO: 0. 567 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity : Approx. Chi-Square 25. 337 df 3 Sig. 0.000 Eigenvalues (Variance Explained): 50. 591 Mean: 4. 393 Standard Deviation: 0. 522 Alpha Cronpach: 0.768

Understanding the feelings of others. 0.797

Putting yourself in the shoes of others. 0.724

Picking up what is being said, how it is being said and the body language that goes with it.

0.624

Optimism KMO: 0 .624 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity : Approx. Chi-Square 42. 554 df 3 Sig. 0.000 Eigenvalues (Variance Explained): 56. 665 Mean: 4.333 Standard Deviation: 0. 544 Alpha Cronpach: 0.801

Taking the initiative, having a ‘can do’ approach. 0.780

Having a happy disposition, seeing a glass that is ‘half full not half empty’.

0.678

Inspiring others by sharing what you are passionate about and encouraging others to do the same.

0.795

Social Responsibility KMO: 0.667 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity : Approx. Chi-Square 57. 982 df 6 Sig. 0.000 Eigenvalues (Variance Explained): 46. 992 Mean: 4. 300 Standard Deviation: 0. 511 Alpha Cronpach: 0.702

Putting others’ needs first. 0.637

Finding common ground with others. 0.800

Minimizing conflict. 0.744

Influencing others for the sake of the relationship or group. 0.641



Table IV. Dependent Factors: Basic and Average TLP Levels and items with loadings


Basic Level KMO: 0. 876 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity : Approx. Chi-Square 741. 248 df 66 Sig. 0.000 Eigenvalues (Variance Explained): 68. 312 Mean: 4. 383 Standard Deviation: 0.640 Alpha Cronpach: 0.893

Cooperate with suppliers. 0.720 Cooperate with customers/users. 0.603 Check government sources. 0.719

Participate in activities of professional associations. 0.692 Participate in activities of trade associations. 0.747 Scrutinize business literature and those periodicals. 0.830 Join local chambers of commerce. 0.640 Subscribe to the local press. 0.611 Subscribe and review trade press. 0.727 Collaborate with stockbrokers. 0.830 Keep track of the prospectus. 0.661 Contact and visit the investment banks. 0.756

Average Level KMO: 0. 896 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity : Approx. Chi-Square 831. 887 df 78 Sig. 0.000 Eigenvalues (Variance Explained): 58. 176 Mean: 4.338 Standard Deviation: 0. 648 Alpha Cronpach: 0. 904

Participation of employees in the company's strategy. 0.693 Use IT such as Bulletin Board System and E-mails. 0.610 Access to the Internet. 0.787 Create informal discussion networks. 0.615 Rotate jobs among employees. 0.816 Establish communication routines. 0.688 Provide members with extra travel budget. 0.822 Use Technology Roadmaps. 0.796 Use a Balanced Scorecard. 0.890 Use Listening Posts. 0.725 Use a Watch List. 0.777 Benchmark key competitors. 0.673 Conduct a sensitivity analysis. 0.614

Table V. Dependent Factor: Advanced and World-class TLP levels and items with loadings


Advanced Level KMO 0.869 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity : Approx. Chi-Square 834. 406 df 45 Sig. 0.000 Eigenvalues (Variance Explained): 77. 444 Mean: 4. 247 Standard Deviation: 0.714 Alpha Cronpach: 0.888

Establish a suitable pyramidal structure of R&D personnel. 0.823 Maintain a reliable and accessible database. 0.797 Use R&D documents in comparison to other documents. 0.834 Acquire up-to-date R&D tools. 0.898 Share knowledge within the R&D departments. 0.795 Share information among departments. 0815 Gain support and commitment of top management. 0.826 Keep a constant balance between human resource planning and learning strategy.

0.857

Recruit high levels of education, skills, and experience. 0.907 Provide training programmes for employees. 0.848

World- Class Level KMO: 0. 948 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity : Approx. Chi-Square 1337. 003 df 55 Sig. 0.000 Eigenvalues (Variance Explained): 72. 869 Mean: 4. 163 Standard Deviation: 0. 801 Alpha Cronpach: 0. 963

Launch projects of limited duration. 0.878 Appoint a gatekeeper. 0.882 Use venture capital funds. 0.828 Send technology envoys throughout the world. 0.857 Organize technology colloquia. 0.864 Arrange innovation workshops. 0.895 Proactively collaborate with universities and research institutes. 0.851 Collaborate with start-ups and leading companies. 0.794 Establish centralized and/or decentralized units dedicated to learn trends of new technologies.

0.800

Provide incentive systems suitable for technological learning. 0.867 Provide researchers with financial resources. 0.870



Table VII. Intercorrelation between variables

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Total EI 1 0.889* 0.625* 0.671* 0.735* 0.914* 0.697* 0.766* 0.741* 0.508* 0.520* 0.460* 0.376* 0.338* Total Intrapersonal EI

0.889* 1 0.738* 0.701* 0.835* 0.426* 0.456* 0.557* 0.495* 0.573* 0.543* 0.488* 0.448* 0.413*

self awareness

0.625* 0.738* 1 0.243* 0.397* 0.410* 0.309* 0.438* 0.236* 0.625* 0.369* 0.325* 0.306* 0.217*

self confidence

0.671* 0.701* 0.243* 1 0.460* 0.520* 0.353* 0.436* 0.465* 0.362* 0.373* 0.294* 0.208 0.306*

self-discipline

0.735 0.835 0.397 0.460 1 0.511 0.381 0.407* 0.446* 0.566* 0.490* 0.477* 0.477* 0.416*

Total Interpersonal EI

0.914* 0.426* 0.410* 0.520* 0.511* 1 0.781* 0.809* 0.822* 0.358* 0.405* 0.351* 0.244* 0.210*

empathy 0.697* 0.456* 0.309* 0.353* 0.381* 0.781* 1 0.413* 0.476* 0.190* 0.230 0.188 0.140 0.091* optimism 0.766* 0.557* 0.438* 0.436* 0.407* 0.809* 0.413 1 0.421* 0.378* 0.417* 0.298* 0.279* 0.262* social responsibility

0.741* 0.495* 0.236* 0.465* 0.446* 0.822* 0.476* 0.421* 1 0.292* 0.325* 0.362* 0.166 0.148

Total TLP 0508* 0.573* 0.363* 0.362* 0.566* 0.358* 0.190 0.378* 0.292* 1 0.767* 0.757* 0.888* 0.827* TLP Basic Level

0. 520 0.543 0.369* 0.373* 0.490 0.405 0.230* 0.417* 0.325* 0.767 1 0.423* 0.484* 0.342*

TLP Average Level

0.460* 0.488* 0.325* 0.294* 0.477* 0.351* 0.188 0.298* 0.362* 0.757* 0.423* 1 0.471* 0.324*

TLP Advanced Level

0.376* 0.448* 0.306* 0.208 0.477* 0.244* 0.140 0.279* 0.166 0.888* 0.484* 0.471* 1 0.445*

TLP World-class Level

0.338* 0.413* 0.217* 0.306* 0.416* 0.210 0.091 0.262* 0.148 0.827* 0.342* 0.324* 0.445* 1

* Significant at p-value < 0.01



Table VIII.

Results of multiple regression analyses related to intrapersonal EI dimensions and TLP levels

Hypothesis

Dependent Variable: Technology Learning Level

Independent Variables

B

t-value

R

R2

F-value

Sig

Result*

H1a Basic Total Intrapersonal EI 0. 547 0. 299 17.087 0.000 S (Constant) 0. 381 0. 618 0.538

Self Awareness** 0. 244 2..333 0. 021 Self Confidence** 0. 268 1. 993 0.048 Self Discipline** 0..3 92 3. 658 0.000

H1b Average Total Intrapersonal EI 0. 505 0. 255 13.679 0.00 P.S (Constant) 0. 902 1.401 0.164 Self Awareness 0.197 1.807 0.073 Self Confidence 0.131 0. 937 0.351 Self Discipline** 0.448 4.007 0.000

H1c Advanced Total Intrapersonal EI 0.494 0. 244 12.942 0.000 P.S (Constant) 1.074 1,503 0.135 Self Awareness 0.195 1.615 0.109 Self Confidence 0.044 0. 285 0.776 Self Discipline** 0.568 4.579 0.000

H1d World Class Total Intrapersonal EI 0.438 0.192 9.496 0.000 P.S

(Constant) 0. 300 0. 302 0.763 Self Awareness 0.096 0. 329 0.567 Self Confidence 0.582 0.573 0.130 Self Discipline** 0. 567 1.523 0.001

* S=supported, P.S= partially supported, N.S= not supported ** Significant at p-value < 0.05.



Table IX.

Results of multiple regression analysis related to interpersonal EI dimensions and TLP levels

Hypothesis

Dependent Variable: Technology Learning Level

Independent Variables

B

t-value

R

R2

F-value

Sig

Result*

H2a Basic Total Interpersonal EI 0.436 0.190 9.392 0.000 P.S

(Constant) 1. 794 3. 299 0.001 Empathy 0. 032 0. 276 0.783 Optimism** 0. 392 3. 379 0.001 Social Responsibility 0. 174 1. 358 0.177

H2b Average Total Interpersonal EI 0..384 0. 148 6.924 0.000 P.S

(Constant) 2.047 3.625 0000 Empathy 0. 016 0.132 0.895 Optimism 0.182 1.512 0.133 Social Responsibility** 0..365 2.750 0.007

H2c Advanced Total Interpersonal EI 0. 280 0. 079 3.411 0. 020 P.S

(Constant) 2.517 3.893 0.000 Empathy 0. 033 .235 0. 815 Optimism** 0. 339 2.454 0. 016 Social Responsibility 0. 028 0. 181 0. 857

H2d World Class Total Interpersonal EI 0. 263 0. 069 2.979 0. 034 P.S

(Constant) 2.199 2.522 0. 013 Empathy 0. 052 0. 277 0.782 Optimism** 0. 457 2.457 0. 015 Social Responsibility 0. 049 0. 240 0. 811

* S=supported, P.S= partially supported, N.S= not supported ** Significant at p-value < 0.05.

Investigating The Impact of Emotional Intelligence …ijens.org/Vol 11 I 03/114903-5757...

Documents

Transcript of Investigating The Impact of Emotional Intelligence …ijens.org/Vol 11 I 03/114903-5757...