Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
0269-994X
July
0
1
3
53
00 ET
WORKPLACE
AL.
International
UK
Psychology:
Publishing
Association
an
LtdInternational
for Applied
Review
Psychology, 2004
A Critical Review
Moshe Zeidner*
University of Haifa, Israel
Gerald Matthews
University of Cincinnati, USA
Richard D. Roberts
University of Sydney, Australia
Cet article est une revue critique des thories et rsultats empiriques favorables
lintelligence motionelle ( I.E.) et son prtendu rle dans lenvironnement
professionnel. On sintresse au statut suppos de lI.E. dans la performance
au travail, la satisfaction et lvaluation de la carrire et des comptences
(surtout dans la domaine de la slection et de lorientation). Globalement,
cette revue de questions prouve que les recherches rcentes ont fait de grands
pas dans la comprehnsion de lutilit de lI.E. au travail. Les preuves strict-
ement scientiques sont cependant insufsantes, la littrature accordant une
conance excessive aux avis dexperts, aux anecdotes, aux tudes de cas et aux
enqutes prives non publies. On propose, la n de larticle, quelques
directives pratiques pour favoriser le dveloppement et lutilisation de mesures
de lI.E. dans les situations professionnelles.
* Address for correspondence: Moshe Zeidner, Center for Interdisciplinary Research of Emo-
tions, University of Haifa, Mt Carmel, 31905, Israel. Email: Zeidner@research.haifa.ac.il
INTRODUCTION
Definitions of EI
No matter what its hue, the aforementioned proponents all lay claim to the
fact that their concept constitutes a generalised, far-reaching intelligence
covering an array of emotional functions. Unfortunately, thus used, the
term too often appears all encompassing and protean, such that EI is left
bereft of conceptual meaning. For example, the populist, though widely
inuential account offered by Goleman (1995) appears to dene EI by
exclusion: as any desirable feature of personal character not represented
by cognitive intelligence. More recently, Goleman (1998, 2001, see also
Boyatzis, Goleman, & Rhee, 2000) suggests that two domain facets dene
the competencies associated with EI: (a) ability awareness versus manage-
ment of emotion, and (b) targetwhether competence relates to self versus
others. The Cartesian product of these two facets (i.e. ability by target) yields
the following four components: (a) awareness of emotions in self; (b) aware-
ness of emotions in others; (c) management of emotions in self; and (d)
management of emotions in others. However, although this analysis sug-
gests some elds of inquiry, it does not identify a unifying common element
to the different components. Furthermore, this conceptualisation does not
tell us how to distinguish EI from other, distinct abilities and personality
traits that may inuence recognition and regulation of emotions (e.g. trait
anxiety, coping dispositions).
Perhaps the most widely accepted scientic denition of EI is the ability
to monitor ones own and others emotions, to discriminate among them,
and to use the information to guide ones thinking and actions (Salovey
& Mayer, 1990, p. 189). This denition identies emotional information
processing as a necessary precursor of emotional regulation, and as we have
argued elsewhere, probably constitutes the most workable contemporary
denition of EI (see Matthews et al., 2002). By contrast, another leading
researcher (Bar-On, 1997) characterises EI as an array of non-cognitive
capabilities, competencies, and skills that inuence ones ability to succeed
in coping with environmental demands and pressures (p. 16). This broader
denition makes no direct reference to the acquisition, retrieval, and instantia-
tion (through appropriate behaviors) of emotional information. It appears to
exclude cognitive skills that might contribute to emotion management,
although, confusingly, Bar-On also lists apparently cognitive abilities such
as problem solving and reality testing as components of EI. Conversely,
Bar-Ons denition places more emphasis on adaptation to environmental
demands.
Models of EI
Mayer and colleagues distinguish between (1) mental ability models,
focusing on aptitude for processing affective information, and (2) mixed
models that conceptualise EI as a diverse construct, including aspects of
personality as well as the ability to perceive, assimilate, understand, and
manage emotions. These mixed models include motivational factors and
affective dispositions (e.g. self-concept, assertiveness, empathy; see Bar-On,
1997; Goleman, 1995). These conceptual disagreements are mirrored by a
major disjunction in measurement paradigm. Those who conceptualise EI
as a fairly well-dened set of emotion-processing skills (e.g. Mayer, Caruso,
& Salovey, 1999, 2000) aim to assess EI through objective, performance
tests. Conversely, those who view EI as encompassing multiple aspects of
personal functioning (e.g. Bar-On, 1997; Boyatzis et al., 2000; Goleman,
1995) aim to measure EI through self-report protocols. By and large, these
tests are designed to assess beliefs and perceptions about an individuals
competencies in specic domains (Salovey, Woolery, & Mayer, 2001).
Table 1 summarises some of the cardinal differences among mixed and
ability models of EI along a number of dimensions, such as conceptual
context, focus, dimensionality, measurement procedures, and their psycho-
metric properties. The manifest differences, contained in this table, should
alert the reader to a particularly problematic feature associated with current
theories of EIwhatever is being measured within mixed models, it is
unlikely the same type of EI as that assessed by mental ability models.
We take up this notion still further in the passages that follow.
A number of problems and serious omissions currently plague the research
on EI conducted under the mixed-model banner, which employs self-report
methodologies (see Davies, Stankov, & Roberts, 1998; Matthews et al., 2002;
Roberts, Zeidner, & Matthews, 2001). According to Barrett, Miguel, Tan, and
Hurd (2001), self-report measures of ability suffer from low reliability, low or
no criterion-related validity, limited construct validity, and are easily faked. It
is also questionable whether items asking students to self-appraise intellectual
ability (e.g. I am an extremely intelligent student) would make for a valid
measure of any intelligence. Moreover, tests of EI that assess non-cognitive
TABLE 1
Continued
Emotional Competencies
Another approach, sharing more in common with mixed models but moving
beyond a rigid conceptualisation of EI, advocates differentiation between
emotional intelligence (a dispositional aptitude) and emotional competencies
(learned capabilities) (Boyatzis, 1982; Goleman, 2001). Based on a host of case
studies, anecdotal accounts, and evaluation studies, Goleman (1998) con-
cludes that the major qualities differentiating successful from unsuccessful
executives are the competencies underlying (or presumably nested within)
EI. Failing executives, apparently, have poorer emotional control, despite
strengths in cognitive abilities and technical expertise.
Under this formulation, EI encompasses such characteristics as motives,
traits, and aspects of ones self-image. In short, EI designates the potential
to become skilled at learning certain emotional responses. By contrast,
emotional competencies are learned capabilities, based on EI, that result in
outstanding performance at work (Goleman, 2001). Akin to the distinc-
tion between uid and crystallised ability (cf. Matthews et al., 2002), EI (as
a uid ability) does not guarantee that individuals will actually manifest
competent behaviors at the workplace. That is, there is no guarantee that
the individual has been exposed to essential environmental experiences or
learning situations and practices necessary to acquire specic emotional com-
petencies or skills (e.g. assertiveness, service orientation, initiative). Whereas
EI may determine a persons potential for learning practical job-related
emotional and social skills, the level of emotional competencies (as a crystal-
lised ability) manifested by that person shows how much of that potential
she or he has actually realised. It is emotional competence then that aids the
learning of job-related skills and which translates EI into on-the-job capab-
ilities. For example, in order to be able to actually empathise with anothers
plight, one needs to have learned the specic empathic skills that translate
into caring and compassionate pastoral counseling, bedside-nursing, or effective
psychotherapy (cf. Cherniss & Goleman, 2001).
1
Mayer, Caruso and Salovey (2000) see this construct as a shadow variable one that
mimics EI in several respects, but that seems conceptually and ontologically distinct.
Overview
Gowing (2001) traces the roots of EI in organisational settings to classic
management theory and practice. Indeed, many of the strategies used in early
assessment centers evaluated non-cognitive abilities akin to EI (e.g. social
awareness, understanding others, communication). These abilities were found
to be predictive of successful performance in managerial positions in many
corporations. Furthermore, over three decades of psychological assessment
research has vindicated the importance of taking social and emotional
competencies into consideration when attempting to predict occupational
effectiveness (e.g. Boyatzis, 1982; Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, & Weich,
1970; Howard & Bray, 1988; Kotter, 1982). In a now classic study, Kotter
(1982) identied a number of personal characteristics discriminating more
from less successful general managers, including such social-emotional
competencies as optimism, communication and relationship skills, and need
for achievement. Furthermore, research by Boyatzis (1982) has identied a
2
Whereas one may object to the use of self-report measures to assess EI (which is pur-
portedly an ability and would thus require more objective performance-based measures), this
assertion does not hold with respect to personality, where self-report measures may be useful,
provided that respondents are motivated to respond truthfully.
between the Big Five and job performance suggest that, even when
corrections are made for statistical artifact, mean validity coefcients do
not exceed .2.3 (Barrick & Mount, 1991, 1993; Tett, Jackson, Rothstein &
Reddon, 1999). However, higher correlations may be found when moderator
factors are taken into account. For example, extraversion is modestly
predictive of success for people in management and sales, but not for those
in other professions (Barrick & Mount, 1991). In general, conrmatory
studies, that are guided by some a priori hypothesis, obtain higher validity
coefcients than purely exploratory studies (Tett et al., 1999). Criteria other
than objective performance may be more strongly linked to personality.
These existing personality studies place some constraints on the expected
validity of questionnaire scales for EI. Generally, it seems unlikely that scales
such as the EQ-i will explain large percentages of variance in performance
criteria, although scales that are less strongly correlated with the Big Five
might potentially do so. Existing research also shows that personality traits
linked to emotion may also have both positive and negative effects depending
on context (Matthews, 1997). Neuroticism appears to relate to low EI, in that
high N persons are moody, vulnerable to stress, and tend to cope ineffectively.
However, across the board, high N is not a barrier to occupational success:
Barrick and Mount (1991) found that the corrected correlation between N and
job prociency was a paltry .07. High N does seem to relate to performance
impairment in highly stressful occupations such as police work, but, con-
versely, high N relates to greater work effort and sales volume in insurance
salespersons (Mughal, Walsh, & Wilding, 1996). Neuroticism may sometimes
act as a spur to occupational achievement. Agreeableness (A), another correlate
of the EQ-i, also has a near-zero overall correlation with job performance
(Barrick & Mount, 1991). However, it seems that high A may be benecial in
teamwork situations (Hough, 1992), but low A is related to superior per-
formance when managers operate under high levels of individual autonomy
(Barrick & Mount, 1993). Qualities of agreeableness such as empathy, altruism,
and interpersonal sensitivity are central to conceptions of EI, but these qualities
may mitigate against effective performance in jobs requiring ruthlessness,
toughness, and individual initiative. It follows that research on EI should be
acutely sensitive to possible moderator factors, and, unlike conventional ability,
emotional intelligence may have both positive and negative associations with
performance, depending on contextual factors.
Over the past few years, a number of studies have attempted to determine
the concurrent validity of EI in predicting job performance, either in simulated
settings or on the job. We now examine this empirical literature.
assert that it is a better predictor of job success than IQ, referring to a few
(as yet unpublished) studies in support of this claim. For example, Bar-On
(1997) cites a study conducted on a sample of 81 chronically unemployed
individuals. These individuals had unusually low EQ-i scores, with the lowest
scores on Assertiveness, Reality Testing, and Happiness. Similarly, Bar-On
(1997) found that individuals from the Young Presidents Organization
(i.e. whose membership is dependent on individuals reaching top leadership
positions in expanding companies) obtained scores on the EQ-i (on virtu-
ally all sub-scales) exceeding the average by signicant amounts. According
to Bar-On, this groups success was dependent on an ability to be very
independent and to assert their individuality, while being able to withstand
various stressors occurring within the job.
The direction of causality in each of these instances raises some concerns.
In particular, low EI scores among the unemployed are likely to be a con-
sequence (rather than a cause) of being chronically unemployed. Similarly,
those performing well in their job are likely to report high levels of emo-
tional stability.
This argument notwithstanding, Bar-On (2000) reports that in a survey
of nearly 100,000 employees in 36 countries, social responsibility surfaced
as one of the most important factors determining effectiveness at work.
However, according to Barrett et al. (2001), the latter study is little else but
a typical name-catching exercise, whereby the authors claim that social
responsibility is important for success and because their test supposedly
measures social responsibility, it is valid for predicting success. Bar-On,
however, does not cite any predictive or concurrent studies in this chapter
to support his claims. In the EQ-i technical manual (1997), Bar-On asserts
that the data indicate a strong connection between EQ-i scores and job
performance, based on a self-rating scale tapping a workers sense of com-
petence (p. 140). This assertion is based on a study of 324 workers from
the US and Canada, who performed the EQ-i and a (self-reported) Sense of
Competence Questionnaire. The correlation between the tests while high
(r = .51), needs to be qualied by the fact that both measures are based on
self-reports, presumably having considerable overlap with the Big Five
personality constructs, especially neuroticism, which predicts self-efcacy.
Notably, no objective measure of job performance criteria, which might
have elucidated the veracity of this claim, was collected.
Finally, Jordan, Ashkanasy, Hartel, and Hooper (2002) have demon-
strated that coaching can improve the effectiveness of low EI teams so that
their performance is functionally identical to that of high EI teams.
Summary
Overall, this section of our review suggests that the current excitement sur-
rounding the potential benets from the use of EI in the workplace may be
premature or even misplaced. Whereas EI appears related to performance
and affective outcomes, the evidence for performance is very limited and
often contradictory. Much of the predictive validity of questionnaire meas-
ures of EI may be a product of their overlap with standard personality
factors. Furthermore, the literature is replete with unsubstantiated general-
isations, with much of the existing evidence bearing on the role of EI in
occupational success either anecdotal or impressionistic and/or based on
unpublished or in-house research. Thus, a number of basic questions still
loom large: Do emotionally intelligent employees produce greater prots
for the organisation? Does EI enhance well-being at the workplace? Are the
effects of training in EI likely to result in increases in job performance
and/or work satisfaction?
Validation
Choosing Appropriate Research Designs. The process of validating an
EI measure requires convincing, empirical evidence that a measure of EI
predicts career success or other important on-the-job criteria. The most
basic task for validation research is to show that EI measures reliably dif-
ferentiate between low- and high-performing groups on particular work-
related criteria. Such studies should focus on predicting success both across
jobs and within jobs, identifying the occupations for which EI is more and
less important (e.g. social workers vs. nancial analysts). The use of EI
component sub-tests also needs to be validated using large-scale, trait-
performance validation designs. It is highly plausible that effective perform-
ance in different occupations involves different patterns of emotional (or
social) characteristics.
Throughout we have emphasised the importance of discriminant validity
with respect to existing ability and personality constructs. What EI might
predict over and above IQ is still an open question. Nevertheless, as one
reviewer noted, one may take issue with the notion that EI needs only to
predict variance above and beyond ability. Thus, EI may (a) predict differ-
ent criterion behaviors than those predicted by cognitive ability or (b)
reduce the negative impact of selection based on ability measures alone for
specic social categories (ethnic, social class, gender). In other words, we
might nd that (a) it is necessary to broaden the criterion space, or (b)
systematic research is needed that demonstrates EI is somehow a less-biased
measure than IQ (of which we have doubts, see Matthews et al., 2002). Such
issues aside, EI is only one factor, along with abilities, interests, motivation,
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the important role attributed to a wide array of emotional com-
petencies in the workplace, there is currently only a modicum of research
supporting the meaningful role attributed to EI (and nested emotional com-
petencies) in determining occupational success. Many of the popular claims
presented in the literature regarding the role of EI in determining work
success and well-being are rather misleading in that they seem to present
scientic studies supporting their claims, while in fact failing to do so. In
short, despite some rather fantastic claims to the contrary, the guiding
principle appears presently as caveat emptor.
REFERENCES
Ackerman, P.L. (1996). A theory of adult intellectual development: Process, person-
ality, interests, and knowledge. Intelligence, 22, 227257.
Bachman, J., Stein, S., Campbell, K., & Sitarenios, G. (2000). Emotional intelligence
in the collection of debt. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8,
176 182.
Bar-On, R. (1997). The Emotional Intelligence Inventory (EQ-I): Technical manual.
Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Bar-On, R. (2000). Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the Emotional
Quotient Inventory. In R. Bar-On & J.D.A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of
emotional intelligence (pp. 363388). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Barrett, G.V., Miguel, R.F., Tan, J.A., & Hurd, J.M. (2001). Emotional intelligence:
The Madison Avenue approach to science and professional practice. Unpub-
lished paper.
Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 126.
Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relation-
ships between the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 78, 111118.
Boyatzis, R. (1982). The competent manager. New York: Wiley & Sons.
Boyatzis, R., Goleman, D., & Rhee, K. (2000). Clustering competence in Emotional
Intelligence: Insights from the emotional competence inventory. In R. Bar-On &
J.D.A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 343362). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Campbell, J.P., Dunnette, M.D., Lawler, I.E.E., & Weick, J.R.E. (1970). Managerial
behavior, performance, and effectiveness. New York: McGraw Hll.
Cherniss, C. (2001). Emotional intelligence and organizational effectiveness. In
C. Cherniss & D. Goleman (Eds.), The emotionally intelligent workplace (pp. 312).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cherniss, C., & Goleman, D. (2001). Training for emotional intelligence: A model.
In C. Cherniss & D. Goleman (Eds.), The emotionally intelligent workplace
(pp. 209233). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cohen, R.J., & Swerdlik, M.E. (1999). Psychological testing and assessment (4th edn.).
London: Mayberry Publishing.
Cooper, R.K. (1997). Applying emotional intelligence in the workplace. Training and
Development, 51, 3133.
Cooper, R.K., & Sawaf, A. (1997). Executive EQ: Emotional intelligence in leaders
and organizations. New York: Grosset / Putnam.
Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R.D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: In search
of an elusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 989 1015.
Dawda, D., & Hart, S.D. (2000). Assessing emotional intelligence: Reliability and
validity of the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) in university stu-
dents. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 797812.
Derksen, J., Kramer, I., & Katzko, M. (2002). Does a self-report measure for emotional
intelligence assess something different than general intelligence? Personality and
Individual Differences, 32, 37 48.
Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. (2000). Emotional intelligence: A review and evaluation
study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15, 341372.
Fox, S., & Spector, P.E. (2000). Relations of emotional intelligence, practical know-
ledge, general intelligence, and trait affectivity with interview outcomes: Its not
all just G. Journal of Organisational Behavior, 21, 203220.
Gardner, H. (1983). Multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1999). Foreward. In J. Cohen (Ed.), Educating minds and hearts. New
York: Teachers College Press.
George, J.M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence.
Human Relations, 53, 10271055.
Gibbs, N. (1995). Whats your EQ? Time, 2 October, pp. 6068.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam
Books.
Goleman, D. (2001). An EI-based theory of performance. In C. Cherniss &
D. Goleman (Eds.), The emotionally intelligent workplace. How to select for,
measure, and improve emotional intelligence in individuals, groups, and organizations
(pp. 27 44). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gowing, M.K. (2001). Measures of individual emotional competencies. In C. Cherniss
& D. Goleman (Eds.), The emotionally intelligent workplace (pp. 83131). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Guilford, J.P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 267293.
Hargreaves, A. (2000). Mixed emotions: Teachers perceptions of their interactions
with students. Teaching Education, 16, 811826.
Hay Group (2000). Emotional intelligence: A soft skill with a hard edge. <http://
ei.haygroup.com /about_ei / >
Howard, A., & Bray, D.W. (1988). Managerial lives in transition. New York: Guil-
ford Press.
Hough, L.M. (1992). The Big Five personality variablesconstruct confusion:
Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139155.
Hunter, J.E., & Hunter, R.F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of
job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 7298.
Hunter, J.E., & Schmidt, F.L. (1996). Cumulative research knowledge and social
policy formulation: The critical role of meta-analysis. Psychology, Public Policy,
and Law, 2, 324347.
Huy, Q.N. (1999). Emotional capability, emotional intelligence, and radical change.
Academy of Management Review, 24, 325345.
Izard, C. (2001). Emotional intelligence or adaptive emotions? Emotion, 1, 249257.
Jackson, S.E., & Schuler, R.S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of
research on role ambiguity and role conict in work settings. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 66 78.
Newsome, S., Day, A.L., & Catano, V. (2000). Assessing the predictive validity of
emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 10051016.
Petrides, K.V., & Furnham, A. (2000). On the dimensional structure of emotional
intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 313320.
Roberts, R., Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G.M. (2001). Does emotional intelligence
meet traditional standards for an intelligence? Some new data and conclusions.
Emotions, 1, 196231.
Ryan, A.M., Ployhart, R.E., & Friedel, M.L. (1998). Using personality testing to
reduce adverse impact: A cautionary note. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,
298307.
Salgado, J.F. (1997). The ve factor model of personality and job performance in
the European Community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 3043.
Salovey, P., Bedell, B.T., Detweiler, J.B., & Mayer, J.D. (2000). Current directions
in emotional intelligence research. In M. Lewis & J.M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.),
Handbook of emotions (pp. 504 520). New York: Guilford Press.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J.D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition
and Personality, 9, 185 211.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J.D. (1994). Some nal thoughts about personality and
intelligence. In R.J. Sternberg & P. Ruzgis (Eds.), Personality and intelligence
(pp. 303318). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Salovey, P., Mayer, J.D., Goldman, S., Turvey, C., & Palfai, T. (1995). Emotional
attention, clarity, and repair: Exploring emotional intelligence using the Trait
Meta-Mood Scale. In J. Pennebaker (Ed.), Emotion, disclosure and health
( pp. 125 154). Washington, DC: APA.
Salovey, P., Woolery, A., & Mayer, J.D. (2001). Emotional intelligence: Conceptu-
alization and measurement. In G. Fletcher & M.S. Clark (Eds.), The Blackwell
handbook of social psychology (Volume 2: Interpersonal Processes) (pp. 279307).
Oxford: Blackwell.
Schmidt, F.L. (1994). The future of personnel selection in the US Army. In M.G.
Rumsey, C.B. Walker, & J.H. Harris (Eds.), Personnel selection and classication
(pp. 333350). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schneider, B., Kristof-Brown, A.L., Goldstein, H.W., & Smith, D.B. (1997). What
is this thing called t? In N. Anderson & P. Herriott (Eds.), International hand-
book of selection and assessment (pp. 393 412). Chichester: Wiley.
Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Hall, L.E., Haggerty, D.J., Cooper, J.T., Golden, C.J.,
& Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional
intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167177.
Sjoberg, L. (2001). Emotional intelligence: A psychometric analysis. European Psy-
chologist, 6, 7995.
Slaski, N. (2001). An investigation into emotional intelligence, managerial stress and
performance in a UK supermarket chain. Unpublished paper.
Sternberg, R.J., & Grigorenko, E.L. (2000). Practical intelligence and its development.
In R. Bar-On & J.D.A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence
(pp. 215243). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Tett, R.P., Jackson, D.N., Rothstein, M., & Reddon, J.R. (1990). Meta-analysis of
bidirectional relations in personalityjob performance research. Human Perform-
ance, 12, 129.