Emotional intelligence
The term first appeared in 1964, gaining popularity in the 1995 bestselling book Emotional Intelligence by psychologist and science journalist Daniel Goleman.
While some studies show that there is a correlation between high EI and positive workplace performance, there is no general consensus on the issue among psychologists, and no causal relationships have been shown.
Since its popularization in recent decades and links to workplace performance, methods of developing EI have become sought by people seeking to become more effective leaders.
[10] The first published use of the term EQ (emotional quotient) is in an article by Keith Beasley in 1987 in the British Mensa magazine.
"[25] The ability-based model views emotions as useful sources of information that help one to make sense of and navigate the social environment, with EI abilities manifesting in adaptive behaviors.
[34] The current measure of Mayer and Salovey's model of EI, the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT), is based on a series of emotion-based problem-solving items.
The MSCEIT can also be expert-scored so that the amount of overlap is calculated between an individual's answers and those provided by a group of 21 emotion researchers.
Among other challenges, the consensus scoring criterion means that it is impossible to create items that only a minority of respondents can solve, because, by definition, responses are deemed emotionally "intelligent" only if the majority of the sample has endorsed them.
This and other similar problems have led some cognitive ability experts to question the definition of EI as a genuine intelligence.
These include: The model introduced by Daniel Goleman focuses on EI as a wide array of competencies and skills, which drive leadership performance in applied settings.
The conceptualization of EI as a personality trait leads to a construct that lies outside the taxonomy of human cognitive ability, distinguishing its operationalization and theory from other models.
[52] Researchers have found TEIQue scores to be unrelated to Raven's matrices of non-verbal reasoning, which has been interpreted as support for the personality trait view of EI.
[27][54] A review published in the Annual Review of Psychology in 2008 found that higher emotional intelligence is positively correlated with a number of outcomes, including social relations, academic achievement, negotiation skills, workplace social dynamics, positive perceptions by other people, health and wellbeing.
[69] A 2001 article also found that employees with strong EI improve workplace performance by providing emotional support and instrumental resources needed to succeed in their roles.
[57] Moon and Hur's 2011 study found that the job performance-EI relationship is stronger under contexts of high emotional exhaustion or burn-out.
[73] A separate 2006 study finds that employees with strong emotional intelligence dedicate more time to cultivating their rapport with supervisors, resulting in more favorable outcomes in performance evaluations compared to those with lower EI.
[76] Landy cites the data upon which commercial claims are based are held in databases unavailable to independent researchers for reanalysis, replication, or verification.
"[17] On the other hand, Mayer (1999)[full citation needed] warns that the notion " that highly emotionally intelligent people possess an unqualified advantage in life... is unsubstantiated by reasonable scientific standards."
[88][89][90] Adam Grant warned of the common but mistaken perception of EI as a desirable moral quality rather than a skill.
[91] Grant asserted that a well-developed EI is not only an instrumental tool for accomplishing goals, but can function as a weapon for manipulating others by robbing them of their capacity to reason.
[91] A 2007 meta-analysis of 44 effect sizes by Schutte et al. found that emotional intelligence was associated with better mental and physical health.
[92] This was replicated in 2010 by researcher Alexandra Martins who found trait EI is a strong predictor for health after conducting a meta-analysis based on 105 effect sizes and 19,815 participants.
This meta-analysis also indicated that this line of research reached enough sufficiency and stability to conclude EI is a positive predictor for health.
[27] An earlier study by Mayer and Salovey argued that high EI can increase one's well-being because of its role in enhancing relationships.
Another study in 2010 examined whether or not low levels of EI had a relationship with the degree of drug and alcohol addiction in Australia.
[95] In the assessment of 103 residents in a drug rehabilitation center, they examined their EI along with other psychosocial factors in a one-month interval of treatment.
Studies have examined the multivariate effects of personality and intelligence on EI and attempted to correct estimates for measurement error.
One study showed that general intelligence, agreeableness, as well as gender could reliably predict the measure of EI ability.
[100] Antonakis and Dietz (2011b)[full citation needed] also show how including or excluding important controls variables can fundamentally change results.
The overlap was so large they concluded that "The findings suggest that the general factor of personality is very similar, perhaps even synonymous, to trait EI.
