WRITE 8-9 pages on Topic- EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IMPACTS ON THE WORKFORCE
Brandon91002
organizationalemotionalintelligencesurvey_2011.pdf
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236146124
Organizational emotional intelligence. Development of a model
Article in International Journal of Organizational Analysis · March 2013
DOI: 10.1108/19348831311322506
CITATIONS
31 READS
3,088
1 author:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Special Issue call for papers from Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050): Sustainable Behavior of the family business: new contributions using
psychological lens View project
Emerging and Re-Emerging Organizational Features, Work Transitions and Occupational Risk Factors: The Good, the Bad, the Right. An
Interdisciplinary Perspective. View project
Gabriele Giorgi
Università degli Studi Europea di Roma
94 PUBLICATIONS 1,418 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Gabriele Giorgi on 07 May 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Organizational emotional intelligence: development
of a model Gabriele Giorgi
Department of Psychology, Universita’ Europea Roma, Rome, Italy
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to focus on two research questions. First, how are emotional competencies related? Second, are organizations emotionally intelligent?
Design/methodology/approach – This study used a new instrument (Organizational Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire, ORG-EIQ) to measure emotional and organizational intelligence competencies of 1,506 employees in 20 Italian organizations. Structural equation modeling, intraclass correlation coefficients and tests of mean differences were used to analyze the research questions.
Findings – This study suggests that organizational emotional intelligence (EI) is an important framework to examine in future research.
Practical implications – Usefulness of the findings for public and private companies is explored.
Originality/value – The study provides preliminary feedback on the possibility of detection of variations in EI levels across organizations and highlights relevant implications accordingly.
Keywords Competences, Personnel psychology, Organizational behaviour, Emotional intelligence, Italy
Paper type Research paper
Introduction Emotional intelligence (EI) is defined as “the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions” (Salovey and Mayer, 1990, p. 189). Although the term “EI” was coined in 1985 by Payne, researchers today still view the construct as elusive, making it the source of considerable debate (Ashkanasy and Daus, 2005). This debate surrounds the crucial assumptions associated with EI. In particular, despite a wide agreement on the importance of EI, considerable disagreement exists regarding the ways to measure it ( Joseph and Newman, 2010). This debate has led EI research to two main divergent paths:
(1) models of EI that focus on mental abilities and deal EI as a standard intelligence such as the Four Branch Model of EI of Mayer et al. (2000); and
(2) models that mix mental abilities with personality attributes and competencies (Bar-On, 1997; Goleman, 1998).
Mental ability models focus on individuals’ abilities to process affective information. Thus, EI is part of set of cognitive abilities for the processing of emotional interpretation and regulating emotion adaptively (Salovey and Mayer, 1990, p. 189). These include the abilities to:
. perceive emotions in oneself and others accurately;
. use emotions to facilitate thinking;
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1934-8835.htm
Received 6 December 2011 Accepted 2 January 2012
International Journal of Organizational Analysis Vol. 21 No. 1, 2013 pp. 4-18 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1934-8835 DOI 10.1108/19348831311322506
IJOA 21,1
4
. understand emotions, emotional language, and the signals conveyed by emotions; and
. manage emotions so as to attain specific goals (Mayer and Salovey, 1997).
This Four-Branch Model has been measured by a series of instruments, the most recent of which is the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso EI test, or MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002).
Mixed models define EI as a diverse construct, including aspects of personality as well as the ability to perceive, assimilate, understand and manage emotions. These models refer to EI as emotional “competence”, which includes emotional, personal and social abilities fundamental for effectively facing environmental requests (Bar-On, 1997). Mixed models further include related motivational factors and affective dispositions (Bar-On, 1997; Goleman, 1998, 2001). In this perspective, the components of EI focus on self-awareness, personal motivation, the capacity to establish adequate empathy and the managing of social relations.
EI has seen a resurgence of interest with the recent focus on positive psychology (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), which emphasizes the fundamental role of personal resources, privileging interventions aimed at developing and boosting these resources and protective factors. Within the workplace, this approach suggests that EI may be an important predictor of work performance. Indeed, McClelland (1973) and Boyatzis (1982) hypothesized some time ago that individuals with superior “soft competencies” would be more successful in life than others. Using meta-analytic techniques, O’Boyle et al. (2010) indicated that EI presents an important association with job performance. Also in a meta-analysis, Joseph and Newman (2010) tested the incremental validity of EI measures to explain job performance. They found that mixed and ability-based EI measures demonstrate incremental validity over and above the Big Five personality traits, as well as over and above cognitive ability. With regard to well-being outcomes, Mayer et al. (2002) also confirm that individuals with higher EI tend to have positive feelings and better management on emotions. People who are high on EI are more likely to intuitively possess and act on meta-mood regulation knowledge such as the fact that people feel better when positive events are presented in terms of improvements over previous conditions (Salovey et al., 1993). Likewise, a growing body of literature has identified the importance of EI in the association with positive organizational behavior and organizational health. The high EI people have skills that help them towards success in various spheres of life, both at work, and in achieving a balance of work and family/leisure (Sjöberg, 2008).
Generally, EI helps employees to successfully cope with occupational stress as well as with workplace bullying (Giorgi and Majer, 2008). Particularly, managers with high EI report better health and well-being (Slaski and Cartwright, 2002). At the same time, they are more likely to successfully cope with emotional labor and conflicting demands ( Joseph and Newman, 2010). Accordingly, also through meta-analytic techniques, (Schutte et al., 2007) indicated that EI has the crucial function of moderating health. In addition, workers with more developed EI probably share, compared to their colleagues, particularly positive perceptions of the organizational climate (Giorgi, 2006). In fact, these workers are able to effectively communicate their ideas, goals and intentions assertively, involving and motivating their colleagues.
Although EI outcomes are important, we suggest that they present only part of the picture. In particular, EI research needs to be extended by taking into account
Organizational emotional
intelligence
5
aspects of the larger work context (e.g. organizational culture) as potential moderators ( Jordan et al., 2010). Additionally, as the research on EI has largely been conducted in Western countries, the generalizability of existing findings across cultures remains not completely clear. Finally, each model defines EI as a multidimensional construct. Nevertheless, research has yet to fully examine the specific contribution of these different EI dimensions. On the ground of the Goleman’s (1998) model applicability and validity for studying the organizational life we used a new model that was used to gauge EI competencies in the context of a sample of Italian organizations and to highlight relevant work-related implications.
Towards a new theoretical model Goleman’ conceptualization have been made based on narratives that have not been largely justified by empirical testing and thus critics appear to be rational (Locke, 2005), although the instrument used to evaluate this model, the Emotional Competence inventory 360 degree (ECI 2.0), showed evidence of reliability and validity (Boyatzis et al., 2000; Boyatzis, 2008).
Thus, we used a new empirically-derived model of EI that has found to be particularly valid in the Italian context, the Organizational Emotional intelligence Questionnaire (ORG-EIQ; Giorgi and Majer, 2009). ORG-EIQ includes four EI competencies-“self-awareness”, “self-management”, “social awareness” and “relationship management” and 12 sub-competencies. All items are related to emotional job competencies and not to emotional competencies of life in general. Items are designed to measure emotional competencies in the organizations.
A measure of EI at work that does not include EI in the more general life appears to be more specific, less elusive and more connected with the organizational excellence. Accordingly, some scholars voiced strong reservations concerning the reliability and validity of the traditionally-used EI scales and suggested the development of new tools (Fineman, 2003). Furthermore, researchers pointed out that EI self report measures had salient cross-loadings on personality dimensions (Law et al., 2004). Specifying each item representing emotional competencies based on organizational life solely, as in the ORG-EIQ, the overlap with personality should be avoided. Thus, consistently with Johns (2006), we posit that empirical research and theories have to take into account the context wherein emotions and occur as well as individual differences are developed.
ORG-EIQ scales contain accordingly items such as “I have good relations with other employees” or “I’m aware of my emotion at work” (Giorgi and Majer, 2009). Subjective feelings and emotional competencies appear indeed context specific. Among Puerto Ricans for instance men showed more EI at work than women did, whereas women reported higher EI in the private life domain than men did (Geher, 2004). Furthermore, these conceptualizations of EI in the organizational domain tell us how to distinguish EI at work from EI in life. These contextually oriented lines of investigation are important to consider as the literature grows (Cherniss, 2010).
According to this view, emotional competency includes the following aspects: . Self-awareness. Awareness of our limits, emotional states and potentiality at
work. . Self-management. The capacity to dominate our inner state, impulses and to use
our resources for the best job performance.
IJOA 21,1
6
. Social competency. Capacity to feel empathy, thus to understand the feelings, experiences and interests of other employees or customers.
. Relationship management. Capacity to induce desirable responses in others.
The first competency of ORG-EIQ is self-awareness, which includes emotional self-awareness, intrapersonal and self-confidence (Giorgi and Majer, 2009). Self-management, the second competency of ORG-EIQ, includes emotional self-control, adaptability and eagerness (Giorgi and Majer, 2009). The third ORG-EIQ competency is social awareness, which includes empathy, organizational awareness and service orientation (Boyatzis et al., 2002; Giorgi and Majer, 2009). The last ORG-EIQ competency is relationship management, which involves leadership, the ability of catalyzing change, and fostering collaboration and teamwork (Boyatzis et al., 2000; Boyatzis, 2008).
How are these competencies related? The dominant models of EI propose a global construct and subdimensions. However, researchers have failed to adequately account for the relations amongst the EI abilities. An often under-looked fact is that it is still unclear exactly how competencies are related. Both Mayer et al. (2000) and Goleman (1998) have developed models with specific relations among competencies. Goleman proposed that the ability of self-awareness is the foundation for self-control and social awareness. In turn, self-control and social awareness are fundamental for the development of social skills. Social skills are then basically functions of management skills. Salovey and Mayer (1990) theorized and empirically verified similar causal mechanisms among EI sub-facets. Additionally, Joseph and Newman (2010) tested a conceptual model of EI (called the “cascading model”) in which emotion perception causally precedes emotion understanding, which in turn gives rise to conscious emotion regulation.
Although there is support provided for these models, other research suggests different conceptualizations. Ferris et al. (2007) considered self-awareness, self-regulation, and social-awareness the foundation of the rational-emotional mind of the person. However, to be successful in organizations, political skills are considered fundamental.
Giorgi and Majer (2009) considered relationship management as the most complex and highest level of abilities among the four EQ competences and as such it could influence the other competencies. For instance, according to Giorgi and Majer (2009), one can be aware of his/her emotions, but not able to manage relationships in specific contexts and therefore possibly not able to work fully with EI.
Similarly, Wheeler (2008) in a longitudinal study found that competency development is enhanced when people are able to work with multiple relationships and to build relationships. As noted by Dreyfus in a managerial competency study (2008), personal experiences, exposure to positive and negative role models, and feedback contributed to greater awareness of interpersonal abilities. However, practice was the most important factor in using the emotional abilities effectively. Social competencies might consequently stimulate the development of personal competencies (Goleman, 1998).
If people do well in relationship management, they learn better social skills to induce desirable responses from coworkers. This also might stimulate a deeper and realistic self-management and self-awareness (Giorgi and Majer, 2009). Indeed, influencing colleagues’ emotions is necessary for employees to develop high quality interpersonal
Organizational emotional
intelligence
7
relationships with them (Salovey and Mayer, 1990), and might contribute to the development of social awareness. In turn, people with high levels of social awareness, being less narrowly focused, may be better able to flexibly approach problems, consider alternative scenarios, and avoid rigidity in self-management. People who finally increase their competence of self-management may be able to use emotions to improve their decision-making, their self-confidence as well as their self-awareness. For instance, when an employee is adaptable, his/her ability to manage emotion will facilitate the development of the intrapersonal ability (Giorgi and Majer, 2009, 2012).
Are organizations intelligent? Beyond the focus of individual and team EI, as commonly reported in literature (Koman and Wolff, 2008), we can also take a broader view of the organization’s EI (Menges and Bruch, 2009; Giorgi and Majer, 2009). Drawing on various theoretical interpretations, organizational intelligence may be defined as the extent to which an organization generates EI behaviors among its employees (Menges and Bruch, 2009; Giorgi and Majer, 2009).
Theoretically and practically there are some good assumptions to infer that organizational EI might exist.
Akgün et al. (2007) noted that the term “organizational intelligence” might be used as the aggregation of people’s intelligence including EI. Organizations can be investigated as emotional entities (Fineman, 2008) since affective climates and affective cultures are emerging as a key organizational factor for success (Fineman, 2008). The notion of organizational intelligence might thus be important (Yolles, 2005; Glynn, 1996).
Taking a general perspective, an emotionally intelligent organization might be able to facilitate collaboration and teamwork in the work environment as well as foster adequate emotion regulation and provide a healthy workplace (Menges and Bruch, 2009; Giorgi and Majer, 2009).
In our view, current literature on EI presents only one part of a complex, multilevel phenomenon. Even if EI is most often conceptualized and studied as an individual construct, in recent literature we are discovering that individual differences might also be organizational differences. Ployhart et al. (2006), using the five factor model of personality, pointed out that personality was more than an individual-level phenomenon, displaying both consensus (composition) and dissensus (compilation) elements (Bliese, 2000).
Accordingly, attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) theory (Schneider, 1987) suggests that employees in one organization tend to become homogeneous in terms of personality (Ployhart et al., 2006). Furthermore, emotional rules such as feelings rules and displays rules might foster the creation of an EI way of working or an emotional stupid way of working (Giorgi and Majer, 2009).
To view EI as an organizational construct rather than an individual construct, it must be approached also from a methodological point of view. Particularly aggregations of lower-level variables request caution and continue to remain a focal theme in multilevel organizational methods research (Bliese, 2000).
One type of emergence of higher-level constructs is the composition model, which emphasizes the shared collective properties of an organization with the assumption of isomorphism between manifestations of constructs at different levels (Kozlowski and Klein, 2000). Giorgi and Majer (2009) stated that organizational EI
IJOA 21,1
8
shares substantially the same contents and meanings as the counterpart construct at the individual level. Indeed, organization-level emotion dynamics, such as emotional climate (Gordon, 1989) or emotional capability (Huy, 1999) may well be traced to the emotion contagious cycles involving individual agents (Hareli and Rafaeli, 2008).
Accordingly, Menges and Bruch (2009) pointed out a positive relationship between the aggregated individual EI and the level of financial performance.
Model development Here, we explore the premise that organizational EI is connected to work-related health (life balance and mood). A complete description of the development of this model is shown in Figure 1. In our model, we position the four emotional competencies as antecedents of the health factors.
Furthermore, a model of EI, which incorporates the fundamental theoretical ideas of Giorgi and Majer (2009), was developed. Relationship management ability provides an opportunity to develop social skills, which in turn provides an opportunity for the development of self-management skill, which in turn provides an opportunity for the development of self-awareness. Since the four competencies are highly correlated in the literature and different sequences of EI exist ( Joseph and Newman, 2010),
Figure 1. The proposed
theoretical model
Relationship Management
Social awareness
Health
M oo
d
C ha
ng e
L ea
de rs
hi p
T ea
m
C li
en t
E m
pa th
y
A da
pt ab
il it
y
E ag
em es
s
E m
ot io
na l
co nt
ro l
In tr
ap er
so na
l
S el
f co
nf id
en ce
S el
f aw
ar ne
ss
O rg
an iz
at io
na l
aw ar
ne ne
ss
L if
eB al
an ce
Self Management
Self Awareness
Organizational emotional
intelligence
9
we propose here that the dimensions of EI may serve as partial mechanisms of mediation rather than full mediators.
In sum, the model of EI (Figure 1) presents social awareness, self-management as partial mediators of the effects of relationship management on self-awareness. In parallel, the four EI competencies influence life balance and mood.
Aims of the study The first objective of this study is to explore the underlying mechanism that links emotional competencies. The second aim is to test the association of emotional competencies with work-related health factors (mood and life balance). People with higher emotional competencies should report less negative mood as well as more life balance than individuals with lower emotional competencies.
The third objective of this study is to verify the organizational nature of EI in case there is sufficient within-organization consistency and between-organizations difference.
Method Procedure Data were collected using questionnaires from 2007 to 2010. The researchers administered the survey on site. The ORG-EIQ (Giorgi and Majer, 2009) was presented within a battery of tests, with instructions for correctly answering the questions; its administration took an average of 20-25 min and none of the participants had difficulty understanding it. All participants were guaranteed anonymity.
Sample A consistent sample of workers was invited to participate, with a total of 1,506 employees (46.8 percent men and 53.2 percent women) across 20 organizations.
Workers came from different Italian regions belonging to multiple organizational contexts (administration, production, medical and nursing area, military, public safety, education). Company sizes ranged from small (ten employees) to large (about 300 employees) (Table I).
Measures To assess EI, the ORG-EIQ was administered. The ORG-EIQ was recently developed by Gabriele Giorgi and Vincenzo Majer and consists of 99 questions that assess 12 EI competencies using self-report methodology. Some correlated factors of EI are also investigated in the ORG-EIQ questionnaire: mood and life balance. The ORG-EIQ has been validated in a sample of more than 1,700 Italian employees. Cronbach’s a internal reliabilities were assessed for each scale with generally good estimates.
To examine the proposed organizational EI structure, Giorgi and Majer (2009) conducted an explorative factor analysis (EFA) and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The authors report that there was support for the organizational EI. Life balance and mood factors were analyzed separately through confirmatory factor analyses. These results showed that both factors present an acceptable validity and reliability.
In addition, the instrument was shown to have adequate convergent validity with theoretically related constructs. However, a complete account of the theoretical and empirical development of the ORG-EIQ is available in Giorgi and Majer (2009).
IJOA 21,1
10
Data analysis Descriptive statistics and frequencies were calculated. Correlation coefficients were then used between the variables considered. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to examine structural models. A series of analyses and comparison of competitive models were conducted.
In order to evaluate the fit of the models, according to Bollen (1989) multiple indices of fit were examined. One of the most widely used fit indices is the chi square (x2).
However, because numerous authors have suggested that the x2 has limitations on the basis of incorrect evaluation related to large samples (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996), alternative fit indices were used: the goodness of fit index (GFI); the comparative fit index (CFI); the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the incremental fit index (IFI).
The following criteria were established to assess the model fit (Schumacher and Lomax, 1996): GFI $ 0.9, CFI $ 0.90, IFI $ 0.90, RMSEA $ 0.08.
For testing the validity of aggregating EI to the organizational level, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated (Bliese, 2000). Significant F statistic from a one-way analysis of variance for ICC(1) and ICC(2) values of more than 0.60 were used as a standard (Bliese, 2000).
Type of company Participants
Public sector 2. School 54 4. Public administration 109 5. Public administration and service 107 6. Hospital A 21 9. Public service 10
10. Public service 17 11. Public library A 15 12. Public library B 22 13. Local government A 22 14. Local government B 16 15. Local government C 74 16. Military 105 17. Local government D 304 19. Military 123
(Subtotal) 999
Private sector 1. Private hospital A 76 3. Information technology 75 7. Service company 10 8. Engineering research center 58
18. Manufacturing company A 177 20. Private hospital B 111
(Subtotal) 507
Total/mean 1,506
Note: n ¼ 1,506
Table I. General description
of the sample
Organizational emotional
intelligence
11
Results Table II presents descriptive statistics, intercorrelations of the research variables. All dimensions are intercorrelated. There are medium positive correlations between the EI dimensions. In contrast there are weaker correlations between EI competencies and life balance and mood, respectively.
The results from SEM partially support the theoretical model (Figure 1). An inspection of the fit indices considered in the present study showed that they met the criteria recommended: GFI 0.92, CFI 0.90 RMSEA 0.08, IFI 0.90. In combination, these fit indices suggest a sufficient fit to the data.
Examination of the path coefficients for the model (Figure 1) indicates that some proposed paths are significant. The paths of relationships among competencies are also high, ranging from 0.92 to 0.79 (Figure 2).
The results show that relationship management is directly related to social awareness. Social awareness fully mediates the relationship between relationship management and self-management. Finally self-management fully mediates the relationship between social awareness and self-awareness. Health is associated with relationship management and with self-management whereas it is not associated with social awareness and self-awareness.
x 2 difference tests for nested models indicate that this model fits the data
significantly better (P , 0.001) than competitive models in which social-awareness and self-management had relationships with health and in which partial mediation rather than full mediation among the constructs was theorized (Figure 1).
The empirical evidence validates our theoretical view that EI facets tend to have a sequential ordering starting from relationship management and the association of EI with mood and life balance.
Finally, several One-way ANOVA were calculated to explore differences in EI among target companies. EI (F ¼ 8.29; 19, 1,487 e p , 0.001), relationship management (F ¼ 6.37; 19, 1,487 e p , 0.001), social awareness (F ¼ 9.67; 19, 1,487 e p , 0.001), self-management (F ¼ 6.53; 19, 1,487 e p , 0.001) and self-awareness (F ¼ 6.37; 19, 1,487 e p , 0.001) demonstrate between-organizations differences.
A Scheffé post-hoc test revealed that were no statistically significant differences between all considered companies, however we found differences in relationship management across seven companies, in social awareness across 12 companies ( p , 0.001; p , 0.05), in self-management across four companies ( p , 0.001; p , 0.05) in self-awareness across five companies ( p , 0.001; p , 0.05) and in EI across seven companies ( p , 0.001; p , 0.05).
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Self-awareness – 0.61 * * 0.56 * * 0.49 * * 0.28 * * 0.39 * *
2. Self-management – 0.61 * * 0.59 * * 0.33 * * 0.52 * *
3. Social competence – 0.74 * * 0.38 * * 0.41 * *
4. Relationship management – 0.35 * * 0.44 * *
5. Life balance – 0.20 *
6. Mood –
Note: Correlation is significant at: *0.05 and * *0.01 levels (two-tailed)
Table II. Correlations among variables
IJOA 21,1
12
In addition, we tested whether there were significant differences between the companies also by using the Welch test. Like the ANOVA test, significance values were less than 0.01.
In conclusion, the ICC (2) were calculated. The ICC for the EI and for each of the four competencies have values of 0.80. These results mean sufficient within-organization consistency.
Discussion This model of EI specifies a sequential relationship among the four subdimensions of EI.
We found a pattern among competency-based EI facets, in which relationship management preceded social awareness. Then social awareness preceded self-management. Finally, self-management preceded self-awareness.
This result is supported by a history of competency literature that points out the importance of practice at work. Accordingly, abilities can be conceptualized as accumulated knowledge structures; consequently, in light of some learning models (such as the action regulation theory, Hacker, 2003) social competencies appear crucial for the development of personal competencies.
Figure 2. The empirical model
Relationship Management
Social awareness
0.39 0.74 0.83
0.92
0.50 0.81 0.83
0.79
0.79 0.38
0.40 0.51 significative
M significative
0.77 0.79 0.45 0.70 0.69 0.69
0.83
Health
M oo
d
C ha
ng e
L ea
de rs
hi p
T ea
m
C li
en t
E m
pa th
y
A da
pt ab
il it
y
E ag
em es
s
E m
ot io
na l
co nt
ro l
In tr
ap er
so na
l
S el
f co
nf id
en ce
S el
f aw
ar ne
ss
O rg
an iz
at io
na l
aw ar
ne ne
ss
L if
e B
al an
ce
Self Management
Self Awareness
Organizational emotional
intelligence
13
In addition, competencies were expected to be partial mediators. However, a full mediation was found. Possibly, processes or other constructs that allow the competencies to be indirect mediators were not included in the model.
On the other hand, we are dealing with an organizational EI, and consequently the links between competencies may be organizational in nature. For instance, whether an organization provides support for developing employees’ relationship management, these draw employees’ attention to outcomes associated with social awareness (e.g. greater service for clients). As a result, social awareness might be enhanced. Furthermore, when employees work with social awareness, they may consciously decide that it is worth applying these social skills because it helps them to perform and manage better in a job. This could facilitate a development in self-management. Finally, these effects might stimulate a deeper self-awareness because employees understand how self-management contributes to their job. However, this competencies pattern should be investigated further.
Relationship management has emerged as well as an important characteristic in the present study. EI does not begin when an individual is promoted into a management job (Dreyfus, 2008). However, work activities, displaying and feelings rules as well as the engagement in leading groups and working in groups inside of work might be very important factors. Accordingly, organization members must not only possess EI, but also need to manage and to apply their EI in their interaction with others in the organization.
Furthermore, organizational EI also proved to be relevant for employees’ health. These findings add to the growing number of studies and suggest that EI is a key component accounting for individual success (Fredrickson and Branigan, 2005).
In particular, we found a significant association of emotional competencies with health-related factors. EI has been demonstrated to play a significant role in facilitating perceived work-life balance and mood. Self-management and relationship management were associated with health in the model. Self-management gives us awareness and control over negative feelings and greater perseverance despite frustration while people with a high level of relationship-management skills will be better able to take advantage of and use their positive moods and emotions to envision major improvements in their organizations’ functioning.
Unexpectedly, social awareness is not associated with mood and life balance. This result might be due to the fact that social awareness is particularly emotionally demanding and consequently might consume more resources than other competencies. Further research is required to validate the exploratory finding outlined in this study.
The findings also demonstrated that emotional competencies might be organizational-level constructs. We consequently argue that entire organizations may be characterized as emotionally intelligent. In particular, we proposed and demonstrated empirically that there is sufficient within-organization consistency and between-organizations difference to conceptualize EI as an organizational construct.
Emotionally intelligent organizations might accrue emotionally intelligent individuals who develop, adopt, and spread emotionally intelligent norms, values, and behaviors shaping collective interaction, possibly through emotional cycles (Giorgi and Majer, 2012). Furthermore, in line with “the broaden and build theory of positive emotions” (Fredrickson and Branigan, 2005), companies with high organizational EI might have the capacity to access and expand their knowledge and to reinvent themselves through the creation of new knowledge.
IJOA 21,1
14
Implications and conclusions The conclusions drawn from this study have implications for management development.
First, results imply that managers who hire employees with high EI should enjoy higher levels of employee health. Organizations may even find that they can increase the number of healthy and optimistic employees by providing emotional competence training for them (Boyatzis et al., 2002). In this case, our results might suggest that organizations could enhance particularly relationship management and self-management.
In addition, measuring the specific competences associated with EI managers may specify areas for success, both on the individual and on the aggregate level. Relationship management appears to be a particularly strategic competence in EI.
Furthermore, the insights of this study could be used to help organizations become more emotionally intelligent. Organizations might foster emotionally intelligent behaviors, recognizing the power of constructive emotion. Indeed organizational EI might be considered a valuable asset for organizations.
Finally, according to this study, the use of some form of competency-based assessment might be also useful in small companies. Today, only organizations employing over 300 people are more familiar with the competencies framework (Boyatzis, 2008). In contrast we used a heterogeneous sample of companies, which also comprised small organizations.
Limitations of this study exist. This study is cross-sectional. It is worthwhile to work with longitudinal data to understand the impact of emotional competencies on health factors as well as to understand the relationships among the emotional competencies.
Future studies may want to validate our findings using different methods to assess organizational EI via non-self-report attenuating consequently the common method variance biases (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Furthermore, the fit of the model was only sufficient. Hence, our research model should be tested in future.
In addition, verifying EI at the organizational level requires a larger number of companies as well as the use of multilevel analysis.
However, these findings offer some important theoretical implications for EI and also suggest several opportunities for more in-depth research. Indeed, these findings have the potential to help organizations shape EI competencies at individual and at organizational level concurrently. It is possible to conclude that when the intelligent organizations foster the person’s EI, he or she is more likely to succeed. Concurrently, to become intelligent, people should be able to apply their emotional competencies.
References
Akgün, A.E., Byrne, J. and Keskin, H. (2007), “Organizational intelligence: a structuration view”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 272-289.
Ashkanasy, N.M. and Daus, C.S. (2005), “Rumors of the death of emotional intelligence in organizational behavior are vastly exaggerated”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 441-452.
Bar-On, R. (1997), The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-I): Technical Manual, Multi Health Systems, Toronto.
Bliese, P. (2000), “Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability”, in Klein, K. and Kozlowski, S. (Eds), Multi-level Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 349-381.
Organizational emotional
intelligence
15
Bollen, K.A. (1989), Structural Equations With Latent Variables, Wiley, New York, NY.
Boyatzis, R.E. (1982), The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance, Wiley, New York, NY.
Boyatzis, R.E. (2008), “Competencies in the 21st century”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 5-12.
Boyatzis, R.E., Goleman, D. and Rhee, K.S. (2000), “Clustering competence in emotional intelligence”, in Bar-On, R. and Parker, J.D.A. (Eds), Handbook of Emotional Intelligence, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 343-362.
Boyatzis, R.E., McKee, A. and Goleman, D. (2002), “Reawakening your passion for work”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 86-94.
Cherniss, C. (2010), “Emotional intelligence: new insights and further clarifications”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 183-191.
Dreyfus, C.R. (2008), “Identifying competencies that predict effectiveness of R&D managers”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 76-91.
Ferris, G.R., Treadway, D.C., Perrewe, P.L., Brouer, R.L., Douglas, C. and Lux, S. (2007), “Political skill in organizations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 290-320.
Fineman, S. (2003), Understanding Emotion at Work, Sage, London.
Fineman, S. (2008), The Emotional Organization: Passions and Power, Blackwell, Oxford.
Fredrickson, B.L. and Branigan, C. (2005), “Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought-action repertoires”, Cognition and Emotion, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 313-332.
Geher, G. (2004), Measuring Emotional Intelligence: Common Ground and Controversy, Hauppauge, Nova Science Publishers, New York, NY.
Giorgi, G. (2006), “Intelligenza emotiva e clima per l’eccellenza nelle organizzazioni”, Risorsa Uomo, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 37-49.
Giorgi, G. and Majer, V. (2008), “Intelligenza emotiva e mobbing: un focus su un campione di vittime di azioni vessatorie”, Risorsa Uomo, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 309-323.
Giorgi, G. and Majer, V. (2009), Organizational Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (Org-EIQ), Giunti, Firenze.
Giorgi, G. and Majer, V. (2012), Intelligenza organizzativa. Competenze emotive ed organizzative per l’eccellenza, Giunti Os, Firenze.
Glynn, M.A. (1996), “Innovative genius: a framework for relating individual and organizational intelligences to innovation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 1081-1111.
Goleman, D. (1998), Working With Emotional Intelligence, Bantam Books, New York, NY.
Goleman, D. (2001), “Emotional intelligence: issues in paradigm building”, in Cherniss, C. and Coleman, D. (Eds), The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 13-26.
Gordon, S. (1989), “Institutional and impulsive orientations in selectively appropriating emotions to self”, in Franks, D.D. and Doyle McCarthy, E. (Eds), The Sociology of Emotions: Original Essays and Research Paper Greenwich, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 115-135.
Hacker, W. (2003), “Action regulation theory: a practical tool for the design of modern work processes?”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 105-130.
Hareli, S. and Rafaeli, A. (2008), “Emotion cycles: on the social influence of emotion in organizations”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 35-59.
IJOA 21,1
16
Huy, Q.H. (1999), “Emotional capability, emotional intelligence, and radical change”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 325-345.
Johns, G. (2006), “The essential impact of context on organizational behavior”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 386-408.
Jordan, P.J., Dasborough, M.T., Daus, C.S. and Ashkanasy, N.M. (2010), “A call to context”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 145-148.
Joseph, D.L. and Newman, D.A. (2010), “Emotional intelligence: an integrative meta-analysis and cascading model”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 1, pp. 54-78.
Koman, E.S. and Wolff, S.B. (2008), “Emotional intelligence competencies in the team and team leader a multi-level examination of the impact of emotional intelligence on team performance”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 55-75.
Kozlowski, S.W.J. and Klein, K.J. (2000), “A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: contextual, temporal, and emergent processes”, Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 3-90.
Law, K.S., Wong, C.S. and Song, L. (2004), “Construct validity of emotional intelligence: its potential utility of management studies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 483-496.
Locke, E.A. (2005), “Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 425-431.
McClelland, D.C. (1973), “Testing for competence rather than intelligence”, American Psychologist, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Mayer, J.D. and Salovey, P. (1997), “What is emotional intelligence?”, in Salovey, P. and Sluyter, D. (Eds), Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Educational Implications, Basic Books, New York, NY, pp. 3-31.
Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D. and Salovey, P. (2000), “Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for intelligence”, Intelligence, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 267-298.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. and Caruso, D. (2002), Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). Version 2.0, Multi-Health Systems, Toronto.
Menges, J.I. and Bruch, H. (2009), “Organizational emotional intelligence and performance: an empirical study”, in Härtel, C.E.J., Ashkanasy, N.M. and Zerbe, W.J. (Eds), Emotions in Groups, Organizations and Cultures (Research on Emotion in Organizations, Volume 5), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bradford, pp. 181-209.
O’Boyle, E., Humphrey, R., Pollack, J., Hawver, T. and Story, P. (2010), “The relationship between emotional intelligence and job performance: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 788-818.
Ployhart, R.E., Weekley, J.A. and Baughman, K. (2006), “The structure and function of human capital emergence: a multilevel examination of the attraction-selection-attrition model”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 661-677.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. (1990), “Emotional intelligence”, Imagination, Cognition and Personality, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 185-211.
Salovey, P., Hsee, C.K. and Mayer, J.D. (1993), “Emotional intelligence and the self regulation of affect”, in Wegner, D.M. and Pennebaker, J.W. (Eds), Handbook of Mental Control, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 258-277.
Organizational emotional
intelligence
17
Schneider, B. (1987), “The people make the place”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 437-453.
Schumacher, R.E. and Lomax, R.G. (1996), A Beginner’s Guide to SEM, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Manwah, NJ.
Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Thorsteinsson, E.B., Bhullar, N. and Rooke, S.E. (2007), “A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between emotional intelligence and health”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 921-933.
Seligman, M.E.P. and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000), “Positive psychology: an introduction”, American Psychologist, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 5-14.
Sjöberg, L. (2008), “Emotional intelligence and life adjustment”, in Cassady, J.C. and Eissa, M.A. (Eds), Emotional Intelligence: Perspectives on Educational & Positive Psychology, Peter Lang Publishing, New York, NY, pp. 169-184.
Slaski, M. and Cartwright, S. (2002), “Health, performance and emotional intelligence: an exploratory study of retail managers”, Stress and Health: Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 63-68.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (1996), Using Multivariate Statistics, 3rd ed., Harper and Collins, New York, NY.
Wheeler, J.V. (2008), “The impact of social environments on emotional, social, and cognitive competency development”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 129-145.
Yolles, M. (2005), “Organisational intelligence”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 17 Nos 1/2, pp. 99-114.
About the author Gabriele Giorgi is full researcher in industrial and organizational psychology at the Università Europea di Roma. Prior to this, he was postdoctoral fellow at the University of Firenze and at the Tokyo Gakugei University. He received his PhD at University of Verona. His research has been published in the Journal of Managerial Psychology, in the International Journal of Workplace Health Management and in Industrial Health. He is also author of the test Organizational Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (ORG-EIQ). Gabriele Giorgi can be contacted at: gabriele. [email protected]
IJOA 21,1
18
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
View publication statsView publication stats
