No abstract

In the first of two articles presenting the case for emotional intelligence in a pointcounterpoint exchange, we present a brief summary of research in the field, and rebut arguments against the construct presented in this issue. We identify three streams of research: (1) a four-branch abilities test based on the model of emotional intelligence defined in Mayer and Salovey (1997); (2) self-report instruments based on the MayerSalovey model; and (3) commercially available tests that go beyond the Mayer-Salovey definition. In response to the criticisms of the construct, we argue that the protagonists have not distinguished adequately between the streams, and have inappropriately characterized emotional intelligence as a variant of social intelligence. More significantly, two of the critical authors assert incorrectly that emotional intelligence research is driven by a utopian political agenda, rather than scientific interest. We argue, on the contrary, that emotional intelligence research is grounded in recent scientific advances in the study of emotion; specifically regarding the role emotion plays in organizational behavior. We conclude that emotional intelligence is attracting deserved continuing research interest as an individual difference variable in organizational behavior related to the way members perceive, understand, and manage their emotions.The case for emotional intelligence, Paper 1 Page 3 Rumors of the Death of Emotional Intelligence in Organizational Behavior are Vastly ExaggeratedThe case for emotional intelligence is presented in two articles. In this, the first of these, we deal specifically with the points raised by Landy, Locke, and Conte in the preceding three articles critical of the conceptualization and measurement of emotional intelligence. Indeed, if one were to read the three critical articles, especially Landy's and Locke's, one could be excused for concluding that emotional intelligence is not viable as a scientific construct, and that organizational researchers ought to stop wasting their time in researching the construct. In other words, emotional intelligence is dead. We argue in this article that, far from being moribund, emotional intelligence is an exciting and developing area of research in organizational behavior, and a key component of the current burgeoning interest in emotions in organizational settings , Ashkanasy, Härtel, & Daus, 2002. At the same time, we also warn that emotional intelligence researchers need to be careful that they fully understand the construct, and also show appropriate levels of circumspection in their research endeavors. In the second of the two articles in defense of emotional intelligence (Daus & Ashkanasy, this issue), we take our arguments a step further, and provide an up-to-date and cogent summary of current research in work settings based on the four-branch model of emotional intelligence (as defined in Salovey & Mayer, 1997). Our hope is that this article will serve to guide future research in a blossoming new field in organizational...

No abstract

This article provides a review of recent developments in two topical areas of research in contemporary organizational behavior: diversity and emotions. In the section called "Diversity," we trace the history of diversity research, explore the definitions and paradigms used in treatments of diversity, and signal new areas of interest. We conclude that organizational behavior in the 21st century is evolving to embrace a more eclectic and holistic view of humans at work. In the section called "Emotions," we turn our attention to recent developments in the study of emotions in organizations. We identify four major topics: mood theory, emotional labor, affective events theory (AET), and emotional intelligence, and argue that developments in the four domains have significant implications for organizational research, and the progression of the study of organizational behavior. As with the study of diversity, the topic of emotions in the workplace is shaping up as one of the principal areas of development in management thought and practice for the next decade. Finally, we discuss in our conclusion how these two areas are being conceptually integrated, and the implications for management scholarship and research in the contemporary world. © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.In this article, we canvass two issues that we believe are both topical and important in organizational behavior: diversity and emotions. We present an analytical review of recent theoretical and empirical developments in these fields, and suggest that integration of these two issues has exciting theoretical and research implications. The first part of our paper deals with diversity. In common with the study of emotions, this area of organizational study underscores how the cognitive-rational paradigms of organizational behavior (e.g., Simon, 1976) are today being challenged. In the first part of our paper, therefore, we trace the history of diversity research, explore the definitions and paradigms used in treatments of it, and signal new areas of interest. In the section called "Emotions," we direct our attention to a discussion of the current and growing interest in the study of emotions in organizational settings. Although interest in emotions in work settings is spread across a broad range of topics, our reading of the trends in this area leads us to the conclusion that four domain areas are especially worthy of attention: mood effects, emotional labor, affective events theory (AET), and emotional intelligence.Why diversity and emotion? As we show below, these are relatively new and stilldeveloping topics in organizational behavior. We argue, however, that modern workplace trends have created an impetus for a focus on these topics. In particular, we identify four trends that, along with their implications, guided our choice to integrate diversity issues and emotions in this article. These are:The trend to globalization: As organizations geographically diversify, and the free movement of labor across national boundaries intensifies, the...

In this second counterpoint article, we refute the claims of Landy, Locke, and Conte, and make the more specific case for our perspective, which is that ability-based models of emotional intelligence have value to add in the domain of organizational psychology. In this article, we address remaining issues, such as general concerns about the tenor and tone of the debates on this topic, a tendency for detractors to collapse across emotional intelligence models when reviewing the evidence and making judgments, and subsequent penchant to thereby discount all models, including the ability-based one, as lacking validity. We specifically refute the following three claims from our critics with the most recent empirically-based evidence: (1) emotional intelligence is dominated by opportunistic 'academics-turned-consultants' who have amassed much fame and fortune based on a concept that is shabby science at best; (2) the measurement of emotional intelligence is grounded in unstable, psychometrically flawed instruments, which have not demonstrated appropriate discriminant and predictive validity to warrant/justify their use; and (3) there is weak empirical evidence that emotional intelligence is related to anything of importance in organizations. We thus end with an overview of the empirical evidence supporting the role of emotional intelligence in organizational and social behavior.The Case for Emotional Intelligence, Paper 2 3 The Case for the Ability Based Model of Emotional Intelligence In Organizational BehaviorOur challenge in this article is to refute the claims of Landy, Locke, and Conte (this issue), and make the more specific case for our perspective, which is that abilitybased models of emotional intelligence have value to add in the domain of organizational psychology. Our first article (Ashkanasy & Daus, this issue) was primarily devoted to addressing the main points of criticism proffered by the three protagonists. In this, our second article, we address remaining issues, and present an overview of the empirical evidence supporting the role of emotional intelligence in organizational and social behavior.