Avances en el estudio de la Inteligencia Emocional

Avances en el estudio de la Inteligencia Emocional
Organisational Research Findings
from the Emotional Intelligence
Questionnaire Refuting Three
Common Myths
Victor Dulewicz
VDA Assessment & Development Consultants
Malcolm Higgs
Southampton School of Management
Abstract
This paper refutes some common myths about
Emotional Intelligence (EI) perpetuated by Occupational/Organisational
Psychologists around
the world, In particular “myths” in relation to
non-ability models of EI. Data will be presented
from studies using the Emotional Intelligence
Questionnaire (EIQ), the first EI questionnaire
psychometrically-designed in Europe, based on a
‘personal factors’ model of EI. Its development is
presented together with details of the EIQ model
and research underpinning it. Results from several
validity studies show that Emotional Intelligence
elements do predict job and other performance
measures from different organisations using
self report and 360 0 studies. Samples comprised
managers, team leaders, salespersons and Callcentre
staff in large companies, and senior civil servants
and Royal Navy and Police officers. Results
confirm that there are clear, defined EI constructs;
that there is evidence of validity of EI in work settings;
and that EI questionnaires do add significant
variance to that produced by the Big 5 Personality
Factors. Information from this research
thus refutes three common myths about Emotional
Intelligence.
Introduction
This paper describes the assessment of Emotional
Intelligence (EI) within Organisations and provides
findings from research conducted using the Emotional
Intelligence Questionnaire (EIQ), based on
an extensive review of the extant literature on EI.
They define EI as “Achieving one’s goals through
the capability to manage one’s own feelings and
emotions; to be sensitive to, and influence other key
people; and to sustain motivation and to balance
one’s motivation and drive with conscientious and
ethical behaviour”.
The questionnaire was designed from an extensive
survey of the literature on EI and the authors’
own relevant research into personal competencies
of managers. On the basis of rigorous item
analysis, seven separate elements of EI were identified
(Dulewicz & Higgs, 2000a; 2000b). These are
defined briefly below:
Self-awareness: Being aware of one’s feelings
and being able to manage them;
Emotional Resilience: Being able to control
ones emotions and to maintain one’s performance
when under pressure;
Motivation: Having the drive and energy to
attain challenging goals or targets;
Interpersonal Sensitivity: Showing Sensitivity
and Empathy towards others;
Influence: The ability to influence and persuade
others to accept your views or proposals;
Intuitiveness: The ability to make decisions,
using reason and intuition when appropriate; and
Conscientiousness: Being consistent in one’s
words and actions, and behaving according to prevailing
ethical standards.
In view of the nature of the EI construct, the
authors saw the need for a 360 0 version of the EIQ-
Managerial. The original 69 items were modified so
that they could be rated by a third party (Dulewicz
& Higgs, 2000b). Furthermore, there was a need
for a version to assess non-managerial respondents
and so items were modified to excise any managerial
content. Self and 360-degree versions were
constructed, called the Emotional Intelligence
Questionnaire – General [population] (Dulewicz &
Higgs, 2001).
There appears from the literature to be a
fierce debate about what constitutes the domain of
EI; terminology used to describe the construct;
methods used to measure it; and the theoretical
framing of the construct (e.g. Locke, 2005).
Mayer, Caruso & Salovey (2000) view the construct
as an ability and designed a questionnaire to
measure it in this way. Goleman adopted a very
different view of the construct, seeing it as being
competencies-based. He presented a model with
25 competencies, derived from the Hay-McBer
consultancy framework, later reduced empirically
to 20 to form the Emotional Competencies Inventory
(Boyatzis, Goleman & Rhee, 2000). Oth-
33