Measuring EQ 2005
Measuring EQ 2005
Measuring EQ 2005
Recently, there has been increasing interest in the role of emotions in organisational life.
Consequently, there is also widespread interest in the topic of emotional intelligence and
its predictive validity for work performance. In researching the construct of emotional
intelligence, it is of prime importance to investigate the measurement of the construct.
The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (Bar-On EQ-i) is the world's first
scientifically developed and validated measure of emotional intelligence (EQ) that has
been made available commercially, and at the time of this study is regarded as the
benchmark in the measurement of emotional intelligence. The Occupational
Personality Questionnaire (OPQ32i) is a competency-based personality questionnaire
used in recruitment and development environments. Both these instruments generate
EQ reports and seemingly represent different views on EQ. Apart from its focus on the
uniqueness of both approaches to EQ and its measurement, this study also explores the
degree of the construct correlation between the two instruments. This is an exploratory
study, and data were obtained from a total population of 38 sales managers in the
South African financial services industry. The results indicate significant construct
overlap and correlations between, firstly, the Bar-On EQ-i and the OPQ32i, and
secondly, between the Bar-On EQ-i and OPQ32i Emotional Intelligence reports.
34
Southern African Business Review 2005 9(2): 34±50
the existence of a personal or emotional intelli- results in outstanding performance at work. Gole-
gence, and recognised the multi-dimensionality of man's framework of emotional competence is set
intelligence. He proposed that intelligent behaviour out in Table 1.
entails processes and components that occur at
Dr Reuven Bar-On also investigated and defined
different levels.
emotional intelligence from a competency model
perspective. According to Bar-On (1996b), emo-
Salovey & Mayer (1990) coined the term `emotional
tional intelligence is defined as the array of
intelligence'. They defined emotional intelligence as
personal, emotional and social abilities and skills
the ability to perceive emotions, to access and
that influence one's ability to succeed in coping with
generate emotions so as to assist thought, to environmental demands and pressures. He identi-
understand emotions and emotional meanings, fied five major conceptual components of emotional
and to regulate emotions reflectively in ways that and social intelligence, which between them are
promote emotional and intellectual growth. They comprised of 15 factors. These are outlined in
developed an ability model of emotional intelligence Table 2.
and consequently describe it as the ability to reason
Based on this framework, the Bar-On Emotional
with and about emotions. This ability model of
Quotient Inventory was developed. This inventory is
emotional intelligence is considered the most well
arguably the first scientifically developed and
clarified theoretically (Palmer, Walls, Burgess &
validated measure of emotional intelligence. This
Stough 2001). inventory was commercialised in 1997, shortly after
the appearance of Goleman's landmark publication
In 1995, Daniel Goleman's Emotional Intelligence:
(Goleman 1995), and is currently regarded as the
Why it can Matter more than IQ, generated a flood
benchmark instrument for measuring EQ. The
of interest in the role that emotional intelligence respective composites and subscales of the Bar-
plays in our lives, and effectively propelled the On Emotional Quotient Inventory are illustrated in
concept of emotional intelligence (EQ) into the Figure 1.
public domain in a coherent and accessible way.
Goleman (1995) adapted the model of Salovey & Goleman's recent EI framework (Cherniss & Gole-
Mayer (1990) to explore how emotional intelligence man 2001) elaborates on previous versions of his
own framework. This altered model shows signifi-
relates to working life. His model splits emotional
cant overlap when placed alongside the systematic
intelligence into the two broad categories of
view of Bar-On's EQ model ± albeit after some re-
personal and social competence. It is thus a
notation and organisation of the scale hierarchy
competence model, and Cherniss & Goleman (see Table 2). This systematic view of Bar-On's
(2001) argue that emotional competencies are job model (Bar-On 1997a; 1997b) focuses on the
skills that can, and indeed must, be learnt. arrangement of similar types of factors that logically
Emotional competence is defined as a learnt and statistically fit together (that is `interpersonal
capability based on emotional intelligence that components' or `intrapersonal components'). The
Optimal performance
35
Measuring emotional intelligence (EQ): a construct comparison between the Bar-On EQ-i and the OPQ32i EI report
reorganisation of the scales illustrates the content connected by a group of `supporting (or secondary)
commonality between Bar-On's Emotional Quotient factors' (as presented in Table 3). Core factors lead
Inventory and Goleman's Emotional Competence to resultant factors, which are both dependent upon
Framework. However, it does not take cognisance the supporting factors, and include the respective
of Bar-On's topographic approach (1997a; 1997b), weightings given to items in their loading on to
which juxtaposes the factorial components of domain scores.
noncognitive intelligence according to a ranked
order ranging from `core (or primary) factors' to Apart from the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inven-
`resultant (or higher order) factors', which are tory (EQ-iTM), several other assessments of emo-
36
Southern African Business Review 2005 9(2): 34±50
Table 2: Bar-On emotional quotient inventory with Cherniss & Goleman notation
A. INTRAPERSONAL REALM (RA): Concerns what is generally referred to as the 'inner self'
A1. Emotional Self-awareness: The ability to recognise and understand one's feelings and emotions,
differentiate between them, know what caused them and why.
A2 Assertiveness. (Placed under domain B): The ability to express feelings, beliefs and thoughts and defend
one's rights in a non-destructive way.
A5. Independence (Placed under domain E): The ability to be self-reliant and self-directed in one's thinking
and actions and to be free of emotional dependency.
A3. Self regard: The ability to look at and understand oneself, respect and accept oneself, accepting one's
perceived positive and negative aspects as well as one's limitations and possibilities.
A4. Self-actualisation (Placed under domain E): The ability to realise one's potential capacities and to strive
to do that which one wants to do and enjoys doing.
B. INTERPERSONAL REALM (ER): Concerns what is known as 'people skills'
B1. Empathy: The ability to be attentive to, to understand and to appreciate the feelings of others. It is being
able to 'emotionally read' other people.
B3 Interpersonal relations. (Placed in domain C): The ability to establish and maintain mutually satisfying
relationships that are characterised by intimacy and by giving and receiving affection.
B2 Social responsibility. (Placed under domain A, B & C): The ability to demonstrate oneself as a
cooperative, contributing, and constructive member of one's social group.
C. ADAPTABILITY REALM (AR): Concerns the ability to size-up and respond to a wide range of difficult
situations
C3. Problem solving: The ability to identify and define problems as well as to generate and implement
potentially effective solutions.
C1. Reality testing: The ability to assess the correspondence between what is experienced (the subjective)
and what in reality exists (the objective).
C2. Flexibility: The ability to adjust one's emotions, thoughts and behaviours to changing situations and
conditions.
D. STRESS MANAGEMENT (SM): Concerns the ability to understand stress without caving in, falling apart,
losing control or going under
D1. Stress tolerance: The ability to withstand adverse events and stressful situations without falling apart by
actively and confidently coping with stress.
D2. Impulse control (Under domain A): The ability to resist or delay an impulse, drive or temptation to react.
E. GENERAL MOOD REALM (GM): Concerns one's outlook on life, the ability to enjoy oneself and others and
one's overall feelings of contentment and satisfaction.
E2. Happiness (Placed under domain D): The ability to feel satisfied with one's life, to enjoy oneself and
others, and to have fun.
E1. Optimism: The ability to look at the brighter side of life and to maintain a positive attitude even in the face
of adversity.
Table 3: A topographic arrangement of the 15 factors of emotional intelligence measured by the Bar-
On EQ-i
Core factors
Emotional self-awareness, Assertiveness, Empathy, Reality testing, Impulse control
Supporting factors
Self-regard, Independence, Social responsibility, Optimism, Flexibility, Stress tolerance
Resultant factors
Problem solving, Interpersonal relationships, Self-actualisation, Happiness
37
Measuring emotional intelligence (EQ): a construct comparison between the Bar-On EQ-i and the OPQ32i EI report
38
Southern African Business Review 2005 9(2): 34±50
39
Measuring emotional intelligence (EQ): a construct comparison between the Bar-On EQ-i and the OPQ32i EI report
model. Cronbach (cited in Saville & Wilson 1991) size, and 0.50 a large effect size, and focus on
indicates that ipsative scales can be used for correlations that meet this practical significance
comparing individuals scale by scale ± as is done criterion.
in this paper. The OPQ32i has evolved over a 20-
year period since the commercialisation of the first
OPQ Concept Model in 1981, and culminated in the Results
. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. ..
launch of the OPQ32 model in 1999.
Descriptive statistics of the Bar-On EQ-i and the
Two types of reliability studies were carried out on OPQ32i are given in Tables 4 and 5 respectively.
the OPQ32i, including internal consistency and The Bar-On EQ-i measures EQ on a scale that
retest reliability (Saville & Holdsworth 1999). Five ranges from 50 to 150, with 100 in the middle of the
types of validity studies were conducted on the effective range (median). Scores ranging from 50 to
OPQ32i instrument, namely, content validity, face 85 indicate areas of enrichment, scores ranging
validity, criterion validity and construct validity from 85 to 115 indicate effective functioning, and
(concurrent and predictive). Saville & Holdsworth scores ranging from 115 to 150 indicate enhanced
conclude that the OPQ32i is valid and capable of skills. The scores for the respective domains are
achieving the objectives for which it was designed. umbrella or summative scores derived from the
subscales clustered under each domain.
40
Southern African Business Review 2005 9(2): 34±50
Domains
Subscales
* Factors essential for Insurance Sales People success (Stein & Book 2000);
** Factors essential for General Sales People success (Irish Institute for Management 2003).
with respect to general sales success, the highest clear that the highest five mean EQ-i scores for the
scores in the tested population were obtained only sample confirm Stein & Book's findings quite
in the scales of assertiveness and happiness articulately.
It should be borne in mind that the population under The raw scores for each factor in the OPQ32i range
discussion is specifically focused on insurance from 0 to 26. In the generation of reports, these
sales rather than general sales. In this regard, scores are converted to sten scores. In Table 5, a
Stein & Book (2000) indicate that the five most UK managerial and professional norm group was
important factors for insurance salespeople utilised to give a sten score indication for the study
(n = 97) seem to be assertiveness (102.24), self- sample compared to this norm group. For 16 of the
regard (102.24), happiness (102.34), stress toler- 32 OPQ32i factors, the study sample had a sten
ance (101.24) and self-actualisation (102.89) ± with score of 5 ± larger than or equal to 50% of the norm
the present sample's mean scores in brackets. It is group for half the scales. For 6 of the 32 OPQ32i
41
Measuring emotional intelligence (EQ): a construct comparison between the Bar-On EQ-i and the OPQ32i EI report
42
Southern African Business Review 2005 9(2): 34±50
factors, the study sample scored a sten of 4. Thus, Although the Bar-On EQ-i subscales of `emotional
the sample scored equal to approximately 31% of self-awareness' (0.67), `assertiveness' (0.69), `self-
the norm group in terms of their worrying, vigorous, actualisation' (0.67), `independence' (0.66), `social
affiliative, caring, behavioural and variety seeking responsibility' (0.69) and `reality testing' (0.68) also
factors. For the remaining ten factors, the study showed alpha coefficients below the acceptable
sample scored above a sten score of 6. Thus the level of 0.70, as recommended by Nunnally &
sample scored equal to approximately 69% of the Bernstein (1994), these are still regarded as
norm group in terms of the optimistic, competitive, acceptable in view of the fact that the small sample
achieving, decisive, persuasive, controlling, data size might have influenced these alpha coefficients.
rational, conventional, forward thinking and rule The correlations reported for these subscales
following factors. should be interpreted with caution, however, and
could not be generalised based on the limitation of
While it was reported that the two measuring
the small sample used in this study.
instruments have good reliability (Bar-On 1997a,
1997b; Saville & Holdsworth 1999), and although Pearson Product moment correlations were deter-
the current sample size is a major limitation, it was mined to investigate the relationship between the
nevertheless decided to investigate the reliability of
OPQ32i scales and the Bar-On EQ-i umbrella
the two scales for the current sample. Cronbach
domains. The results of the correlation analysis
alpha coefficients were determined for the Bar-On
are displayed in Table 7.
EQ-i subscales and the OPQ32i EI Report do-
mains. These are shown in Table 6.
Total Bar-On EQ-i
From Table 6, it can be seen that Cronbach alpha
coefficients of between 0.56 for the Bar-On EQ-i The total Bar-On EQ-i score is an indication of
subscale of `flexibility' and 0.93 for the OPQ32i overall emotional intelligence and shows a practi-
`social ease' domain were obtained. According to cally significant negative correlation of large effect
Nunnally & Bernstein (1994), an alpha coefficient of with the OPQ32i scale of `worrying' (r = -0.60) and a
0.70 is acceptable. The subscale of `flexibility' was practically significant negative correlation of med-
therefore excluded from the rest of the analysis. ium effect with `data rational' (r = -0.43), `conven-
Table 6: Cronbach alpha coefficients for the measuring instruments
Cronbach alpha coefficients for Bar-On EQ-i Cronbach Alpha coefficients for OPQ32i EI
subscales report domains
Empathy 0.78
Flexibility 0.56
Happiness 0.79
Optimism 0.74
43
Measuring emotional intelligence (EQ): a construct comparison between the Bar-On EQ-i and the OPQ32i EI report
Table 7: Correlations between all of the OPQ 32i scales and Bar-On EQ-i domains
Bar-On EQ-i
tional' (r = -0.34) and `evaluative' (r = -0.31). 0.36) and large effect with `achieving' (r = 0.47).
Furthermore, the total Bar-On EQ-i score shows a From this, it seems that a high emotional intelli-
practically significant positive correlation of medium gence (as measured by the Bar-On EQ-i) is
effect with `vigorous' (r = 0.30) and `persuasive' (r = associated with a low propensity to worry ('worry-
44
Southern African Business Review 2005 9(2): 34±50
ing'), a preference for dealing with opinions and with others and possess good social skills. This
feelings rather than facts and figures ('data ra- domain includes the subscales of `interpersonal
tional'), a preference for new and less conventional relationship', `empathy' and `social responsibility'. It
work methods or approaches ('conventional'), a is about being able to `emotionally read' other
dislike of critically analysing information or focusing people. The Interpersonal domain correlates, as the
on potential limitations ('evaluative'), as well as a Bar-On EQ-i total score, with the OPQ32i scales of
preference for keeping busy and enjoying having a `worrying' (r = -0.47), `data rational' (r = -0.41),
lot to do ('vigorous'), being ambitious and having a `achieving' (r = 0.39) and `persuasive' (r = 0.30).
preference for working toward challenging goals
Furthermore, the Interpersonal domain also corre-
and targets ('achieving') and a preference for
lates, as does the Intrapersonal domain, with the
changing other people's views or being comfortable
OPQ32i scale of `rule following' (r = -0.39). In
using negotiation ('persuasiveness') (as measured
addition, the Interpersonal domain seems to be
by the OPQ32i).
negatively related to the OPQ32i scales of `emo-
tionally controlled' (r = -0.31) and `forward thinking'
Intrapersonal (RA) EQ domain (r = -0.42), but positively related to `affiliative' (r =
The Bar-On EQ-i Intrapersonal domain is con- 0.41), all of medium effect, and `outgoing' (r = 0.57),
cerned with what is generally known as the `inner of large effect. From this, it seems that the ability to
self', and includes the subscales of emotional self- relate well to others and the possession of good
awareness, assertiveness, independence, self-re- social skills (as measured by the Bar-On EQ-i) can
gard and self-actualisation. These Intrapersonal be associated with being low on worrying, data
scales measure the ability of individuals to know rational and rule following, and being higher on
themselves and their feelings. The Bar-On EQ-i achieving and being persuasive. Apart from this, it
Intrapersonal EQ domain correlates with the same
can be associated with openly expressing feelings
OPQ32i scales that the Total Bar-On EQ-i score
and displaying emotions clearly ('emotionally con-
correlated with, namely, `worrying' (r = -0.63), `data
rational' (r = -0.36), `conventional' (r = -0.43), trolled'), being more likely to focus on immediate,
`evaluative' (r = -0.31), `vigorous' (r = 0.33), rather than long-term issues ('forward thinking'),
`achieving' (r = 0.50) and `persuasive' (r = 0.49). enjoying others' company ('affiliative'), as well as
In addition, the Intrapersonal EQ domain shows a being talkative and enjoying attention ('outgoing')
practical significant negative correlation of medium (as measured by the OPQ32i).
effect with `rule following' (r = -0.39), and a practical
significant positive correlation of medium effect with
`competitive' (r = 0.31). It seems that the ability to Stress Management (SM) EQ domain
know oneself and one's feelings (as measured by The Bar-On EQ-i Stress Management EQ domain
the Bar-On EQ-i) can be associated with a low
concerns the ability to understand stress and to
propensity to worry ('worrying'), a preference for
work well under pressure without caving in, falling
dealing with opinions and feelings rather than facts
apart, losing control or going under. It includes the
and figures ('data rational'), a preference for new
and less conventional work methods or approaches subscales of `stress tolerance' and `impulse con-
('conventional'), a dislike of critically analysing trol'. The domain shows a negative correlation of
information or focusing on potential limitations practical significance of medium effect with the
('evaluative'), a preference for keeping busy and OPQ32i scales of `worrying' (r = -0.38) and `data
having a lot to do ('vigorous'), being ambitious and rational' (r = -0.32), as well as a positive correlation
having a preference for working towards challen- of practical significance of medium effect with
ging goals and targets ('achieving'), a preference `emotionally controlled' (r = 0.36) and `caring' (r =
for changing other people's views or being comfor- 0.33). It therefore seems that the ability to manage
table using negotiation ('persuasiveness'), as well
stress (as measured by the Bar-On EQ-i) can be
as a propensity not to be restricted by rules and
associated with a low propensity to worry ('worry-
procedures, a tendency to dislike bureaucracy ('rule
following') and to enjoy competitive activities ing'), a preference for dealing with opinions and
('competitive') (as measured by the OPQ32i). feelings rather than facts and figures ('data ra-
tional'), at times not displaying emotions or con-
cealing feelings ('emotionally controlled'), as well as
Interpersonal (ER) EQ domain being sympathetic and considerate towards others
The Bar-On EQ-i Interpersonal EQ domain mea- or becoming involved with others' problems ('car-
sures the individual's ability to interact, relate well ing') (as measured by the OPQ32i).
45
Measuring emotional intelligence (EQ): a construct comparison between the Bar-On EQ-i and the OPQ32i EI report
46
Southern African Business Review 2005 9(2): 34±50
Table 8: Correlations between the Bar-On EQ-i domains and subscales and OPQ32i EI report domains
47
Measuring emotional intelligence (EQ): a construct comparison between the Bar-On EQ-i and the OPQ32i EI report
Reality testing (RT) and the domain of Stress Management on the Bar-
On EQ-i. It seems that being sympathetic and
The `reality testing' core factor is the ability to considerate towards others, helping and supporting
assess the correspondence between what is others or becoming involved in others' problems
experienced (the subjective) and what exists in can be associated with the ability to work well under
reality (the objective). This core factor showed no pressure without losing control. This is a relation-
correlation with any of the OPQ EI domains. ship that can be investigated further.
48
Southern African Business Review 2005 9(2): 34±50
this domain to show some relationship to the developmental perspective, the Bar-On EQ-i is very
subscale of `empathy' and the Interpersonal domain helpful, user friendly, much more detailed in
of the Bar-On EQ-i. Although there appears to be reporting on subscales, and very appropriate in
an overlap in the definition of these two concepts, generating a good understanding of EQ constructs.
there does not seem to be content overlap in terms Given the Bar-On EQ-i's very specific prediction of
of how the two instruments measure the concept of sales success, further research needs to be
empathy. Again, the limited sample size prohibits conducted as to the corresponding predictive
generalisation. And lastly, as expected, the Social validity of the OPQ32i ± with EQ taken into account.
Ease domain shows a relationship with the Inter-
personal domain, the `problem solving' subscale (in A limitation of this study is that a small sample was
the Adaptability domain) and the General Mood used. Consequently, some of the subscales of the
domain of the Bar-On EQ-i. Bar-On EQi showed lower Cronbach alpha coeffi-
cients than the acceptable level of 0.70, as
An investigation into the relationship between the
recommended by Nunnally & Bernstein (1994).
OPQ32i EI domains and five core factors of the
The results regarding these subscales should
Bar-On EQ-i indicates that the core factor of
therefore be interpreted with caution. This research
`empathy' relates to the Total EQ score, the
could therefore also be repeated with similar, larger
Personal Insight and the Social Ease domains of
samples or samples from other organisations.
the OPQ32i EI. The core factor of `emotional self-
awareness' also relates to the Total EQ score of the
OPQ32i EI. It therefore seems that the ability to
References
recognise and understand one's feelings and
emotions, differentiate between them and know Bar-On, R. 1988. `The development of a concept of
psychological well being', Unpublished doctoral
what caused them and why, as well as the ability to
dissertation, Rhodes University, Grahamstown.
be attentive to, and to understand and appreciate,
the feelings of others (as measured by the Bar-On Bar-On, H. 1996a. `Strengths and limitations of ipsative
EQ-i), represents the Total EQ score as measured measurement', Journal of Occupational and Orga-
by the OPQ32i EI. This seems to represent the nisational Psychology, 69: 49±56.
Intrapersonal and Interpersonal domain of the Bar- Bar-On, R. 1996b. The BarOn Emotional Quotient
On EQ-i relating to the Managing Feelings and Inventory (EQ-i): A Test of Emotional Intelligence.
Managing Relationships domains on the OPQ32i Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
EI. Bar-On, R. 1997a. BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory
Technical Manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Apart from the Intrapersonal and Interpersonal
Bar-On, R. 1997b. BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory
domains, the Bar-On EQ-I measures three other
User's Manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
domains as well: Stress Management (SM), Adapt-
Cherniss, C. & Goleman, D. (eds). 2001. The Emotionally
ability (AR) and General Mood (GM), which Bar-On
Intelligent Workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
describes as social intelligence measures. These
domains seem to be related in different degrees to Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the
the Managing Relationships domain of the OPQ32i Behavioral Sciences. Second edition. New Jersey:
EI, again indicating construct overlap between the Lawrence Erlbaum.
two measures. Cooper, R. & Sawaf, A. 1997. Executive EQ. London:
Orion Business Books.
The respective OPQ32i scales and the formulae Dann, J. 2001. Test your Emotional Intelligence. London:
that constitute the respective OPQ32i EI domains Hodder & Stoughton.
were not made available for this research. Further
Dulewicz, V. & Higgs, M. 2000. `Emotional Intelligence: A
research is needed to ascertain the extent to which
review and evaluation study', Journal of Managerial
the construct overlap would be influenced if this
Psychology, 15(4): 341±372.
could also be factored in.
Fischer, C.D. & Ashkanasy, N.M. 2000. `The emerging
role of emotions in work life: an introduction',
Commercial application of the two Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21: 123±129.
instruments Gardner, H. 1983. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple
Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Both reports generate an emotional intelligence
output. The OPQ32i EI is a second order report Goleman, D. 1995. Emotional Intelligence: Why it can
generated from the OPQ32i, whereas the Bar-On Matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam Books.
EQ-i is a dedicated EQ instrument. From a Higgs, M. 2001. `Is there a relationship between the
49
Measuring emotional intelligence (EQ): a construct comparison between the Bar-On EQ-i and the OPQ32i EI report
Myers-Briggs type indicator and emotional intelli- Saville & Holdsworth (SHL). 1999. Occupational Person-
gence?', Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(7): ality Questionnaire (OPQ32i) Manual and User's
509±533. Guide. Surrey, UK: SHL.
Irish Management Institute. 2003. `Personal mastery in
Saville, P. & Wilson, E. 1991. `The reliability and validity of
emotional intelligence: emotional intelligence and
normative and ipsative approaches in the measure-
sales success'. [Online]. Available: http://gwimi.i-
mi.ie/eqhtml/articles_ei_sales_success.shtml. Ac- ment of personality', Journal of Occupational
cessed: 9 July 2003. Psychology, 64: 219±238.
Law, K.S., Wong, C. & Song, L.J. 2004. `The construct Stein, S.J. & Book, H. E. 2000. The EQ Edge: Emotional
and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and Intelligence and your Success. Toronto: Stoddart
its potential utility for management studies', Journal Publishing.
of Applied Psychology, 89(3): 483±496.
Sternberg, R.J. 1985. Beyond IQ: A Triarchic Theory of
Muchinsky, P.M. 2000. `Emotions in the workplace: The
neglect of organizational behavior', Journal of Human Intelligence. New York: Cambridge Univer-
Organizational Behavior, 21: 801±855. sity Press.
Nunnally, J.C. & Bernstein, I.H. 1994. Psychometric Thorndike, E. L. 1920. `Intelligence and its uses', Harper's
Theory. Third edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. Magazine, 140: 227±235.
Palmer, B., Walls, M., Burgess, Z. & Stough, C. 2001. Wechsler, D. 1943. `Nonintellective factors in general
`Emotional intelligence and effective leadership',
intelligence', Journal of Abnormal Social Psychol-
Leadership and Organizational Development Jour-
ogy, 38: 100±104.
nal, 22(1): 5±10.
Salovey, P. & Mayer, J. 1990. `Emotional intelligence', Wechsler, D. 1958. The Measurement and Appraisal of
Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9(3): 185± Adult Intelligence. Fourth edition. Baltimore, MD:
211. Williams & Wilkins.
50