- Reports
- Business Case for Emotional Intelligence
- Do Emotional Intelligence Programs Work?
- Emotional Competence Framework
- Emotional Intelligence: What it is and Why it Matters
- Executives' Emotional Intelligence (mis) Perceptions
- Guidelines for Best Practice
- Guidelines for Securing Organizational Support For EI
- Johnson & Johnson Leadership Study
- Ontario Principals’ Council Leadership Study
- Technical Report on Developing Emotional Intelligence
- Measures
- Emotional Capital Report (ECR)
- Emotional Intelligence Quotient (EQ-i)
- Emotional & Social Competence Inventory 360 (ESCI)
- Emotional & Social Competence Inventory-University (ESCI-U)
- Geneva Emotional Competence Test
- Genos Emotional Intelligence Inventory (Genos EI)
- Team Emotional Intelligence (TEI)
- Mayer Salovey Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT)
- Profile of Emotional Competence (PEC)
- Schutte Self-Report Inventory (SSRI)
- Six Seconds Emotional Intelligence Assessment (SEI)
- Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue)
- Wong's Emotional Intelligence Scale
- Work Group Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP)
- References
- Model Programs
- Achievement Motivation Training
- Care Giver Support Program
- Competency-Based Selection
- Emotional Competence Training - Financial Advisors
- Executive Coaching
- Human Relations Training
- Interaction Management
- Interpersonal Conflict Management - Law Enforcement
- Interpersonal Effectiveness Training - Medical Students
- JOBS Program
- LeaderLAB
- Self-Management Training to Increase Job Attendance
- Stress Management Training
- Weatherhead MBA Program
- Williams' Lifeskills Program
- Article Reprints
- Members
- Events
- Bookstore
Do Programs Designed to Increase Emotional Intelligence at Work-Work?
Download PDF |
|
Publication Date 2002 |
![]() |
he recent and widespread interest in the importance of emotional intelligence (EI) at work (Goleman, 1995) has led to the development of programs that are designed to (1) educate people about the relevance of emotional intelligence in the workplace, (2) assess their relative strengths and weaknesses, and (3) provide a framework to develop and enhance their ability to interact with others with greater emotional intelligence (Boyatzis, 1999). The present research will attempt to provide some evidence for the effectiveness of an emotional intelligence training program; specifically, whether participants' scores on a measure of EI improve after exposure to a program designed to increase emotional intelligence at work.
Methods
Samples
Two samples participated in a Mastering Emotional Intelligence (MEI) workshop. Sample 1 consisted of 20 participants who were assessed twice on a measure of emotional intelligence, with 8 months between assessments. Half of these participants (10) were Brazilian managers from a large consumer retail organization, undergoing the training as part of a developmental process. The remaining 10 participants were Brazilian consultants from a global HR consulting firm, attending the same training session to familiarize themselves with the MEI program. Sample 2 consisted of 19 participants from a large U.S. government accounting organization, with 14 months between assessments.
Emotional Intelligence Inventory (ECI)
The ECI is a multi-rater instrument that provides self, manager, direct report, and peer ratings on a series of behavioral indicators of emotional intelligence, based on the emotional competencies identified by Goleman (1998). The ECI encompasses 20 competencies, organized into four clusters (See Table 1): Self-Awareness, Social-Awareness, Self-Management, and Social Skills (Boyatzis, Goleman, Rhee, 1999). Previous research has shown the ECI to have high levels of internal consistency (Boyatzis & Burckle, 1999).
Mastering Emotional Intelligence Program (MEI)
Briefly, the MEI program is a one-year process that helps to better identify and address workplace emotional intelligence issues, and provides support for participants as they work to raise their emotional intelligence competencies.
Participants were first assessed on the ECI (T1) that served to establish baseline levels of emotional intelligence. After T1 ratings were collected, participants then participated in a "Building Awareness" two-day workshop that provided an introduction to EI. Participants met again for another 2-day "Deciding to Change" workshop. During this workshop, participants received individual attention on those EI competencies where their self assessments were dramatically different from "total others" ratings. Participants were encouraged to meet with group members who were committed to helping each other improve EI by providing support and feedback when situations arose that challenged their EI skills. Participants then met again for a 1-day "Practicing and Mastering" workshop that provided further opportunity to work on EI behaviors. Finally, participant's progress was measured by another multi-rater ECI assessment.
Statistics
Because of the nature of EI workshops (small n), differences between T1 and T2 scores were considered meaningful if they showed (1) moderate to high effect sizes, (2) and if differences were statistically significant based on the results of paired-samples t-tests (Nickerson, 2000; Cohen, 1988; Harris & Rosenthal, 1985). Effect size equaled the difference between the groups being compared, divided by the standard deviation of the combined groups. This is a direct measure of the size of the difference between the groups, that is not influenced by sample size (Nickerson, 2000).
Results
Sample 1 (large Brazilian consumer retail organization)
In general, scores were higher upon reassessment, suggesting that EI improved. T2 scores ranged from .02 SDs to .75 SDs higher than T1 scores (See Table 1). On average, T2 scores were .33 SDs higher than T1 scores, which corresponds to approximately an 11% improvement over T1. Participants showed significant improvement on T2 ratings on the following 8 out of 20 EI competencies: Self-Confidence, Organizational Awareness, Service Orientation, Conscientiousness, Adaptability, Initiative, Communication, and Conflict Management. Two others (Empathy and Change Catalyst) showed marginal levels of improvement (See Table 1).
These overall differences were overwhelmingly carried by the Brazilian sub-sample of consumer managers. The average magnitude of change for Brazil managers (.60 SDs) was considerably greater than the change for Brazilian consultants (.22 SDs). Although not discussed in detail here, these findings may provide further support for the effectiveness of the MEI program by providing a quasi-control group. The consultant sub-sample may not have been as sufficiently motivated and committed to change as was the client sub-sample.
Sample 2 (large U.S. government accounting organization)
Results with sample 2 were even more robust and promising than those found with sample 1. Scores were significantly higher upon reassessment on 19 of 20 competencies (see Table 2). Alternatively, T2 scores ranged from .28 SD units to 1.06 SD units higher than T1 scores. On average, T2 scores were .70 SD units higher than T1 scores, which corresponds to approximately a 24% improvement over T1.
Confounding Variables
Information was also collected on sample 2 regarding overlap of raters for T2 to determine whether being rated by the same or different people had an impact on ECI scores. Each participant received a percent overlap score indicating the proportion of raters that rated participants for both assessments. The % overlap scores ranged from 0% to 90%. The mean % overlap was 47% and the median overlap was 55%. To test whether % overlap influenced ECI scores, the following analyses were computed.
Percent of overlap was correlated with all 20 ECI "total others" competency scores for assessment two and no relationships were found. Gap scores were computed (difference between T1 and T2 scores) to determine EI change/improvement. Correlations were computed between all 20 gap scores and % overlap and again, no relationships were found. Also, a median split was computed creating two groups: low overlap group (<50%) and a high overlap group (>50%). Another series of pair-samples t-tests were computed and no differences were found between groups for all 20 competencies. These analyses suggest that multi-rater ECI ratings by the same people or by different people does not bias or influence "total others" scores.
Discussion
Increases in T2 ECI scores with both samples suggest that workshop interventions are effective at improving EI. However, it is important to underscore that these findings, although very promising, are preliminary. Without an adequate control group it is difficult to isolate the impact of the intervention versus that of other variables that may have contributed to the higher scores. For example, Goleman (1998) reported research demonstrating a positive correlation between EI and age. Also, future research will attempt to answer the following question: Does the focused effort on those competencies in participants' developmental action plans show particular improvement? Because each participant targets different competencies for development, powerful evidence for the efficacy of training would result from demonstrating the particular improvement of these targeted EI competencies relative to the level of overall improvement of non-targeted EI competencies.
Future Research Directions
There are several things we can do to improve the quality of research around the ECI. For example, access to larger samples of individuals that have been assessed twice on the ECI, inclusion of a control group to allow for a comparison of improvement, good demographic data (e.g., age, years of service) to control for other confounding variables, and accurate records of specific action plans for each participant would greatly strengthen our position. These steps will allow for firm assertions about our EI measures and programs that are supported by rigorous empirical research.
Table 1. Sample 1. Overall differences between assessment one and assessment two on participants' total-other scores (N=20).
Competency | Assessment |
Effect |
t |
p |
||||
One |
Two |
|||||||
Self Awareness | Mean |
SD |
Mean |
SD |
||||
Emotional Self-awareness | 2.55 |
.34 |
2.62 |
.31 |
.22 |
-1.05 |
.31 |
|
Accurate Self-Assessment | 3.42 |
.32 |
3.41 |
.28 |
.03 |
0.08 |
.94 |
|
Self-confidence | 4.21 |
.38 |
4.42 |
.35 |
.58 |
-3.24 |
.004* |
|
Social Awareness | ||||||||
Empathy | 4.62 |
.70 |
4.80 |
.58 |
.28 |
-1.46 |
.16 |
|
Organizational Awareness | 3.58 |
.31 |
3.70 |
.29 |
.40 |
-2.79 |
.01* |
|
Service Orientation | 4.21 |
.27 |
4.42 |
.29 |
.75 |
-3.07 |
.006* |
|
Self-Management | ||||||||
Self-control | 2.47 |
.31 |
2.52 |
.37 |
.15 |
-0.65 |
.52 |
|
Trustworthiness | 2.66 |
.23 |
2.69 |
.21 |
.14 |
-0.88 |
.39 |
|
Conscientiousness | 2.78 |
.26 |
2.90 |
.16 |
.57 |
-4.19 |
.001* |
|
Adaptability |
3.18 |
.23 |
3.32 |
.22 |
.62 |
-2.96 |
.008* |
|
Achievement Orientation |
4.28 |
.65 |
4.73 |
.56 |
.25 |
-1.23 |
.23 |
|
Initiative |
3.25 |
.32 |
3.42 |
.26 |
.59 |
-2.36 |
.03* |
|
Social Skills | ||||||||
Developing Others | 3.17 |
.40 |
3.18 |
.46 |
.02 |
-0.15 |
.89 |
|
Leadership | 3.20 |
.46 |
3.27 |
.39 |
.17 |
-0.83 |
.42 |
|
Influence | 3.88 |
.37 |
3.98 |
.32 |
.29 |
-1.02 |
.32 |
|
Communication | 3.19 |
.35 |
3.35 |
.33 |
.47 |
-2.24 |
.04* |
|
Change Catalyst | 3.85 |
.45 |
4.00 |
.53 |
.31 |
-1.73 |
.10 |
|
Conflict Management | 3.06 |
.35 |
3.23 |
.35 |
.49 |
-1.91 |
.07* |
|
Building Bonds | 3.46 |
.36 |
3.50 |
.36 |
.11 |
-0.73 |
.47 |
|
Teamwork & Collaboration | 4.06 |
.54 |
4.10 |
.51 |
.08 |
-0.37 |
.72 |
*Differences were considered meaningful, or significant, if effect sizes were moderate or large and if paired-samples t-tests statistically significant (p < .05).
Table 2. Sample 2. Overall differences between assessment one and assessment two on participants' total-other scores (N=19).
Competency | Assessment |
Effect |
t |
p |
|||
One |
Two |
||||||
Self Awareness | Mean |
SD |
Mean |
SD |
|||
Emotional Self-awareness | 2.75 |
.28 |
2.87 |
.18 |
.55 |
-2.80 |
.01* |
Accurate Self-Assessment | 3.72 |
.33 |
3.94 |
.11 |
1.01 |
-3.30 |
.004* |
Self-confidence | 4.43 |
.46 |
4.70 |
.31 |
.69 |
-3.22 |
.005* |
Social Awareness | |||||||
Empathy | 5.16 |
.73 |
5.58 |
.40 |
.75 |
-3.81 |
.001* |
Organizational Awareness | 3.79 |
.30 |
3.92 |
.12 |
.60 |
-2.27 |
.04* |
Service Orientation | 4.65 |
.44 |
4.83 |
.25 |
.54 |
-2.52 |
.02* |
Self-Management | |||||||
Self-control | 2.77 |
.36 |
2.90 |
.15 |
.50 |
-2.05 |
.05* |
Trustworthiness | 2.81 |
.20 |
2.92 |
.01 |
1.06 |
-2.74 |
.01* |
Conscientiousness | 2.92 |
.18 |
2.96 |
.12 |
.28 |
-1.19 |
.24 |
Adaptability |
3.45 |
.42 |
3.71 |
.27 |
.75 |
-2.84 |
.01* |
Achievement Orientation |
5.21 |
.60 |
5.52 |
.42 |
.60 |
-3.43 |
.003* |
Initiative |
3.61 |
.39 |
3.78 |
.24 |
.55 |
-2.24 |
.04* |
Social Skills | |||||||
Developing Others | 3.57 |
.48 |
3.84 |
.22 |
.77 |
-3.46 |
.003* |
Leadership | 3.52 |
.48 |
3.84 |
.20 |
.97 |
-4.45 |
.001* |
Influence | 3.32 |
.56 |
3.61 |
.35 |
.63 |
-2.28 |
.04* |
Communication | 3.60 |
.43 |
3.81 |
.21 |
.65 |
-2.46 |
.02* |
Change Catalyst | 4.39 |
.50 |
4.65 |
.27 |
.67 |
-2.86 |
.01* |
Conflict Management | 3.59 |
.42 |
3.82 |
.21 |
.70 |
-3.33 |
.004* |
Building Bonds | 3.65 |
.38 |
3.89 |
.18 |
.87 |
-3.35 |
.004* |
Teamwork & Collaboration | 4.46 |
.48 |
4.80 |
.28 |
.89 |
-4.32 |
.001* |
References
Boyatzis, R. E. (1999). Developing emotional intelligence. In Cherniss, C. & Goleman, D. (eds.), Developments in Emotional Intelligence.
Boyatzis, R. & Burckle, M. (1999). Psychometric properties of the ECI. Boston, MA: Hay/McBer Group.
Boyatzis, R. E., Goleman, D., & Rhee, K. (1999). Clustering competence in emotional intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI). In Bar-on, R. & Parker, J. D. (eds.). Handbook of Emotional Intelligence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavior sciences. (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Grandey, A. A. (2000). Emotional regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupatoinal Health Psychology, 5 (1), 95-110.
Harris, R. J. & Rosenthal, R. (1985). Mediation of interpersonal expectancy effects: 31 meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 363-386.
Nickerson, R. S. (2000). Null hypothesis significance testing: A review of a old and continuing controversy. Psychological Methods, 5 (2), 241-301.
News and Events
Check out our new EVENTS section to find out about the latest conferences and training opportunities involving members of the EI Consortium.
NEW Doctoral Program in Organizational Psychology
Rutgers University - Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology (GSAPP) is now offering a doctoral program in Organizational Psychology and is accepting applications for students. The Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations is headquartered within Rutgers, providing students the opportunity to conduct research and collaborate with leading experts in the field of emotional intelligence. Click here for additional information.
NEW Research Fellowship
think2perform Research Institute’s Research Fellowship program invites proposals from doctoral candidates, post-docs and junior faculty pursuing self-defined research focused on moral intelligence, purpose, and/or emotional intelligence. Click here for more information.
Listen to Consortium member Chuck Wolfe interview some of the thought leaders in emotional intelligence.
Harvard Alumni Panel - Why is interest in Emotional Intelligence Soaring?
Consortium member Chuck Wolfe hosts a panel of world class leaders in the field of emotional intelligence (EI) to talk about why interest in EI is soaring. Panel members include EI Consortium members Dr. Richard Boyatzis, Dr. Cary Cherniss and Dr. Helen Riess. Click here to view the panel discussion.
Interview with Dr. Cary Cherniss and Dr. Cornelia Roche
Host, Chuck Wolfe interviews Drs. Cary Cherniss and Cornelia Roche about their new book Leading with Feeling: Nine Strategies of Emotionally Intelligent Leadership. The authors share powerful stories of cases involving outstanding leaders using strategies that can be learned that demonstrate effective use of emotional intelligence. Click here to see the interview.
Interview with Dr. Rick Aberman
See Chuck Wolfe interview Consortium member and sports psychologist Dr. Rick Aberman on peak performance and dealing with the pandemic. The interview is filled with insights, humorous anecdotes, and strategies for achieving peak performance in athletics and in life. Click here to see the interview.
Interview with Dr. David Caruso
Chuck Wolfe interviews Consortium member David Caruso talking about their work together, the ability model of emotional intelligence, and insights into how to use emotional intelligence to address staying emotionally and mentally healthy during times of crisis and uncertainty. Click here to listen to the interview.
Interview with Dr. Richard Boyazis
How can you help someone to change? Richard Boyatzis is an expert in multiple areas including emotional intelligence. Richard and his coauthors, Melvin Smith, and Ellen Van Oosten, have discovered that helping people connect to their positive vision of themselves or an inspiring dream or goal they've long held is key to creating changes that last. In their book Helping People Change the authors share real stories and research that shows choosing a compassionate over a compliance coaching approach is a far more engaging and successful way to Helping People Change. Click here to listen to the interview.
Interview with Dr. Marc Brackett
Marc Brackett, Director of the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence, has written a wonderful book about feelings. I worked with Marc when he was first crafting his world class social and emotional learning program, RULER. Our interview highlights how Marc has achieved his own and his Uncle's vision for encouraging each of us to understand and manage our feelings. My conversation with Marc is inspiring, humorous, and engaging at times. Click here to listen to the interview.
Interview with Dr. Helen Riess
Helen Riess is a world class expert on empathy. She is an associate clinical professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and director of the Empathy and Relational Science Program at Mass General Hospital. Helen discusses her new book and shares insights, learnings and techniques such as the powerful seven-step process for understanding and increasing empathy. She relates information and cases whereby she uses empathy to make a meaningful difference in areas such as parenting and leading. Click here to listen to the interview.
Interview with Dr. Maurice Elias
The show is about the Joys and Oys of Parenting, a book written by a respected colleague, Dr. Maurice Elias, an expert in parenting and emotional and social intelligence. Dr. Elias wrote a book tying Judaism and emotional intelligence together to help parents with the challenging, compelling task of raising emotionally healthy children. And while there are fascinating links to Judaism the book is really for everybody. Click here to listen to the interview.
Interview with Geetu Bharwaney
Challenges abound and life is stressful for many. So how do we cope? Chuck Wolfe interviews Geetu Bharwaney about her book, Emotional Resilience. Geetu offers research, insights, and most importantly practical tips for helping people bounce back from adversity. Click here to listen to the interview.
Interview with Dr. Daniel Goleman
Listen to an interview by with Dr. Goleman on his new book Focus: The Hidden Driver of Excellence. In the book Dan helps readers to understand the importance and power of the ability to focus one's attention, will power, and cognitive control in creating life success. Click here to listen to the interview.
Interview with Dr. John Mayer
How Personal Intelligence Shapes Our Lives: A Conversation with John D. Mayer. From picking a life partner, to choosing a career, Jack explains how personal intelligence has a major impact on our ability to make successful decisions. Click here to listen to the interview.
Interview with Dr. Cary Cherniss
Click HERE to listen to an interview with Dr. Cary Cherniss co-chair of the EI Consortium. Dr. Cherniss discusses the issue of emotional intelligence and workplace burnout.
Interview with Dr. Marc Brackett
Click HERE to listen to an interview with Dr. Marc Brackett, the newly appointed leader of the Center of Emotional Intelligence which will begin operation at Yale University in April, 2013. In this interview Dr. Brackett shares his vision for the new center.