Emotional intelligence (investigating the impact of project managers' emotional intelligence on their interpersonal competence)
Running head: EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 1 Emotional Intelligence Jaime Morales Interamerican University of Puerto Rico Organizational Behavior and Theory BADM 5100 Dra. Rosa J. Martínez January 17, 2012
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 3 Emotional Intelligence International economic figures indicate a significant and growing use of projectmanagement in the global economy (Davis, 2011). In order to achieve a sustainable competitiveadvantage, an organizations chosen strategy must be reinforced (Davis, 2011). A commonmethod of reinforcement is projects (Davis, 2011). Projects need to integrate and align withbusiness strategy to help achieve organizational goals (Davis, 2011). Organizations that excelwith the use of projects may be more capable of responding to risk or opportunities (Davis,2011). Annual spending on projects is now in the billions (Davis, 2011). This figure continues togrow year after year (Davis, 2011). It is difficult to overlook the increasing demand for better,faster, and more cost-effective projects (Davis, 2011). The growing use of project managementcreates a growing importance for the role of project manager (Davis, 2011). Researchers have long debated the skills and competencies are beneficial in the projectmanager role that may reduce project failures (Davis, 2011). Researchers have also debated thevalue and applicability of emotional intelligence (EI) in organizations and the value of thevarious assessment tools available (Davis, 2011). Few studies have proposed research questionsinvestigating the relationship that may exist between these two domains or between factors of EIassessment instruments and interpersonal competence with project managers (Davis, 2011). Thepresent research emphasized individual project managers as the unit of analysis and offersempirical data that may benefit researchers and practitioners of both fields by clarifying anyrelationship that may exist between different models of EI and interpersonal competenceconstructs in the role of project manager (Davis, 2011). The findings here hope to contribute toexisting EI theory, EI model development, the training and development of project managers,and the interpersonal competencies of those who manage change through projects (Davis, 2011).
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 4In one recent study, across 15 nations and 21 industries, 83% of chief executive officers (CEOs)reported an increasing gap between their expectations for substantial change andtheir organizations ability to execute this change (Davis, 2011). New research on EI and theinterpersonal competencies of project managers is relevant because both domains may offeravenues that fuel the effectiveness of organizational adaptability (Davis, 2011). High projectfailure rates and inept abilities to change must bring attention to those ultimately responsible forthe success of a project (Davis, 2011). The need for projects and project success is placing a renewed emphasis on one very uniquerole: the project manager (Davis, 2011). In 1999, the largest credential-certifying organization ofproject managers in the world, the Project Management Institute (PMI), had 43,000 members(Davis, 2011). This organization now has over 340,000 members, an increase of 790% in 12years. One can only speculate about the growth of the project management profession in 5 or 10more years, but the trend is clear: this number is going up rapidly (Davis, 2011). The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does not classify project managers as anoccupation. This is one of many signals suggesting an increasing gap between investment anddemand on the one hand and knowledge and expertise on the other (Davis, 2011). Compared togeneral management or leadership literature, the field of project management is very young. Ithas been criticized for a scanty theoretical basis, and only 41% of projects were recently found tomeet their objectives on time, on budget, and on quality (Davis, 2011). These trends suggestresearch with project managers is needed (Davis, 2011). Improved knowledge and awarenessappear to be beneficial (Davis, 2011). Ironically or not, another concept has gained momentum along a very similar timeline: aconcept called emotional intelligence (Davis, 2011). New books and periodicals appear year after
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 5year (Davis, 2011). Most organizations seem to appreciate that EI has some relationship toperformance, but the understanding of how, where, and why is unclear (Davis, 2011). Theconcepts and tools of EI are used in organizations, but the validity and application of theconstruct remain a major concern (Davis, 2011). The very definition of the concept remainsunclear (Davis, 2011). This lack of clarity is reflected in contemporary business, where polls ofhuman resource professionals found most feel incompetent on the subject, despite claims ofmassive applicability in organizations (Davis, 2011). Most published research on EI and performance is conducted in laboratory settings or withstudent populations (Davis, 2011). These results may not be applicable to organizations orprojects (Davis, 2011). As a result, researchers have called for further studies that clarify thevalue and applicability of EI in organizations (Davis, 2011). The exact magnitude and predictivevalidity of EI continue to vary by situation (Davis, 2011). The investigation here is in response tothese trends and calls for research (Davis, 2011). The primary goal of the research was to determine if the ability model of EI, as measured bythe Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT), shows a correlation acrossfour interpersonal competencies common in project manager performance models (Davis, 2011).These four domains are communication, motivation, conflict management, and problem solving(Davis, 2011). The first four research questions asked whether project manager scores on theMSCEIT show a statistically significant relationship with the ratings they receive from thosethey work with for each domain (Davis, 2011). The secondary goal of the research was to determine which components of the ability modelof EI show a relationship with a popular mixed model, the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory(Davis, 2011). The ability model and mixed model were also explored to see which had a
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 6stronger and more consistent relationship to interpersonal competency ratings across the samefour domains. The two research questions for this second focus of the study were exploratory innature and emphasized the similarities and differences of the two EI tools regarding theirrelevance to each other and the interpersonal competency domains (Davis, 2011). THEORY AND HYPOTHESES The ontological perspective for this research is that emotional awareness and emotionalknowledge have relevance in organizations because firms must utilize human capital, andhumans inherently express emotions individually and when interacting (Davis, 2011). Theepistemological perspective in this study views emotional intelligence and interpersonalcompetency factors as constructs difficult to measure but sufficiently defined for evaluations ofrelevance, relationships between each other, and comparison to each other (Davis, 2011). Thefollowing theories provide a foundation for these perspectives and are followed by the newhypotheses for this study (Davis, 2011). Personal Construct Theory predicts that proposed changes in opposition to esteemed corevalues will elicit intense negative behaviors (Davis, 2011). Project managers must integrateproject requirements from diverse groups (Davis, 2011). Stakeholders may protect the status quoif they are emotionally invested or reliant on it for stability (Davis, 2011). Emotional intelligencemodels often have a branch measuring an awareness of emotions in others. Perhaps emotionalintelligence signifies individuals with an understanding of these relationships (Davis, 2011). The Theory of Multiple Intelligences proposes a framework of cognitive intelligence one thatproposes segregation into multiple "kinds" of intelligence (Davis, 2011). These subsets includemusical, bodily kinesthetic, logical-mathematical, linguistic, spatial, interpersonal, and
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 7intrapersonal intelligence (Davis, 2011). Most modern EI scholars point to what this authorcalled "interpersonal" and "intrapersonal" intelligences (Davis, 2011). Emotional Intelligence Theory, which is also called Primal Leadership Theory, predicts thatthe EI of leaders is tied to their performance (Davis, 2011). Project managers may assumeleadership roles, or need to lead at certain points in the project life cycle (Davis, 2011). This mayimply that the EI construct would help predict project manager performance, especially if theylead or assume leadership roles during a project (Davis, 2011). Transformational Leadership Theory predicts that ones ability to create transformationalchange is predicted by the ability to create idealized influence, individual consideration,inspirational motivation, and intellectual stimulation (Davis, 2011). Using the Trait Meta MoodScale (TMMS) found a strong correlation between the TMMS and inspirational motivation(Davis, 2011). These same authors hypothesized that the El construct would be found to predictchange agent performance (Davis, 2011). Perhaps there is a unique correlation between EI andcertain types of change not just leadership, with transformational leadership explicitly noting"transformational" change (Davis, 2011). Basic Emotions Theory predicts that universal patterns of individual facial and vocalexpressions exist across cultures (Davis, 2011). Emotions are seen here as intra-individual statesrather than processes unfolding in a social context (Davis, 2011). Since some patterns ofemotions exist across cultures, according to the theory, it may be plausible that thesefundamental similarities in emotional information are understood and utilized by someindividuals more than others, and this ability impacts performance (Davis, 2011). The theoretical basis for the construct of an EI is grounded in the Theory of MultipleIntelligences and Basic Emotions Theory perspectives (Davis, 2011). The ability model and
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 8mixed models of emotional intelligence emphasize the factors and concepts of these two theoriesdifferently (Davis, 2011). The ability model is primarily concerned with intelligence or theinterplay of cognition and emotion, and defines emotional intelligence as the ability to identify,use, understand, and manage emotions (Davis, 2011). This model may be viewed as anindividuals potential for utilizing emotional information (Davis, 2011). The mixed trait model ofemotional intelligence views the concept more broadly (Davis, 2011). The mixed trait modeldoes not claim to directly measure cognitive aptitude but instead noncognitive competencies(Davis, 2011). Theoretically, there is less emphasis on the Theory of Multiple Intelligences andBasic Emotions Theory because the focus is on the clusters of interrelated emotional and socialcompetencies, skills, and facilitators that impact intelligent behavior (Davis, 2011). The four primary research questions for this study were presented as formal hypotheses andare parsimonious, repeatable, and measurable (Davis, 2011). Each primary research questionasked whether project manager scores on the MSCEIT have a statistically significant relationshipwith the ratings they receive from others on each of the four interpersonal competencies(communication, motivation, conflict management, and problem solving) (Davis, 2011). Thesecondary research questions focused on two areas (Davis, 2011). The first question asked ifthere was a relationship between MSCEIT and EQ-i scores of project managers (Davis, 2011).The second question asked if the EQ-i always outperforms the MSCEIT when measuringcorrelation to project manager interpersonal competency ratings (Davis, 2011). The secondaryresearch questions were not expressed as hypotheses because they are exploratory andsupplemental in nature (Davis, 2011). Each formal hypothesis for the primary research questionsused the MSCEIT, which utilizes the ability model of EI, to measure the independent variables(Davis, 2011). Each overall MSCEIT score was utilized for the primary research questions and
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 9successive formal hypotheses (Davis, 2011). A questionnaire measuring four factors of projectmanager interpersonal competence was then utilized to measure the dependent variables(motivation, communication, conflict management, and problem solving (Davis, 2011). Each ofthese dependent variables is strongly supported as interpersonal competencies needed in projectmanagers (Davis, 2011). EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE In the early 20th century, Darwin began reporting that emotional expression was a keycomponent of survival and adaptation (Davis, 2011). This was followed by studies of socialintelligence by Thorndike (1920), Wechsler (1939), Wedeck (1947), and Hemphill (1959)establish by Davis, 2011. Themes began to emerge suggesting many forms of intelligence(Davis, 2011), and studies began to support the notion that certain individuals had higher skillsand abilities with emotions (Davis, 2011). The origination of the term emotional intelligencecame from a 1985 unpublished dissertation by Wayne L. Payne, a PhD student from The UnionInstitute used the term EI in the first published coining of the term, and Bar-On (1992) expandedupon their ability-based model to argue at the time that EI is in fact a nomenclature of multiplecapabilities (Davis, 2011). This is the genesis of what became the ability model and later the firstmixed model -- the mixed model of EI being the broader of the two (Davis, 2011). This waswhere many of the first debates began to take place, as scholars maneuvered on the realdefinition of an EI construct (Davis, 2011). After years of debate and energized by the work of New York University neurobiologistJoseph LeDoux and University of Iowa neurobiologist Antonio Damasio, Daniel Goleman wrotea book (Davis, 2011). This book is commonly noted as the key event responsible for the
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 10proliferation of the EI construct (Davis, 2011). This book was Golemans 1995 publication,Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ (Davis, 2011). In the following years,various publications (Gibbs, 1995) and new or updated models (Bar-On, 1997; Cooper & Sawaf,1997; Goleman, 1998b) began to emerge (Davis, 2011). Some scholars posited that the constructis really a form or component of social intelligence (Davis, 2011). Others proposed that theconstruct is actually a form of practical intelligence (Davis, 2011). The central premise in each ofthese interpretations is that the ability to integrate cognition with emotion is important andvaluable, it varies by individual, and there are beneficial applications (Davis, 2011). The strongest research stream supporting the applicability of EI in organizations is that ofleadership, where high correlations have been found between EI and performance (Davis, 2011).Studies using EI tools have found relationships with an individuals ability to handle stress(Davis, 2011), create sales growth or recruit effectively, reduce turnover in their teams orthemselves, and build effective or productive relationships at work, among others. The tools usedin these studies generally fall into one of two groups: ability models and mixed models (Davis,2011). The ability model is skill-based and focuses exclusively on cognitive aptitudes, much like anIQ test; has right and wrong answers; and comes from a long line of social psychology (Davis,2011). Today this is usually measured by the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional IntelligenceTest, which is an individual assessment and has four clusters: perceiving emotions,understanding emotions, managing emotions, and using emotions (Davis, 2011). Each of theseindividual clusters was examined in the secondary or exploratory part of this study as variables(Davis, 2011). The ability model is primarily concerned with cognitive aptitude and theintellectualization of emotional information (Davis, 2011).
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 11 The mixed model is a broader interpretation and definition of emotional intelligence (Davis,2011). Mixed models view EI as a set of noncognitive competencies including personal, social,and emotional factors (Davis, 2011). The most common instruments used today to measure thismodel are the Emotional Competency Inventory (ECI) (Hay Group, 1999) and the EmotionalQuotient Inventory (EQ-i) (Davis, 2011). The ECI (or mixed competency model) includes fourclusters of factors, including self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, andrelationship management (Davis, 2011). The EQ-i (mixed trait model) uses a five-part definitionfor emotional intelligence, including clusters on intrapersonal EQ, interpersonal EQ, adaptability,stress management, and general mood (Davis, 2011). Each cluster of the EQ-i is a variable in thisstudy examined in the secondary or exploratory research questions (Davis, 2011). Proponents of the ability model argue that correlations have been found between the mixedmodel and personality, while the ability model shows discriminate validity from personality(Davis, 2011). The clarification that needs to be made is that authors of the mixed models do notclaim to measure emotional intelligence, despite any generalizations made from their titles(Davis, 2011). The ability model focuses on cognitive aptitude (Davis, 2011). The mixed modelsfocus on emotionally and socially competent behaviors or behaviors important to performance atwork (Davis, 2011). While earlier mixed model proposals were offered as an "interpretation" ofemotional intelligence (Davis, 2011), these have later been clarified as distinct concepts separatefrom emotional intelligence while still retaining similarities (Davis, 2011). For these reasons, the(Davis, 2011)operational definition for emotional intelligence used here is the seminal definitionoffered by Salovey and Mayer (1990) stating that emotional intelligence is the ability to monitorones own and others feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use thisinformation to guide ones thinking and actions (Davis, 2011).
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 12 The ECI was not used for this study as an alternative mixed model because the ECI often hasvery strong results, some so overwhelming that researchers have called for an examination of thetools real predictive validity (Davis, 2011). The ECI is not offered in a self-assessment version,opening an evaluation of the tool up to new reliability and validity concerns (Davis, 2011). Somefactors of the ECI may even measure high performance directly, such as service, developingothers, organizational awareness, achievement, change catalyst, and transparency (Davis, 2011).Comparing the ECI factors to interpersonal competency factors may be a duplication of factors.Since little is known about the predictive validity of the EQ-i in organizations and the tool iswidely used, it seems reasonable to explore this interpretation of the mixed model in the businesssetting in the interest of new empirical data (Davis, 2011). The psychometric aspect of the Bar-On model of emotional intelligence is the measure of theconstruct, which was designed to measure the model, the Emotional Quotient Inventory (Davis,2011). Since 1980, over one million people have taken the EQ-i (Davis, 2011). The instrumenthas been refined using factor analysis and normative samples in North America, Asia, Europe,South America, and Africa. Some correlations to personality tests have been found, and this isdue to the broader nature of the model and measure (Davis, 2011). The EQ-i was used for thisstudy to measure the mixed model (Davis, 2011). The psychometric aspect of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso model of emotional intelligence is themeasure of the construct that was designed to measure their model, the Mayer-Salovey-CarusoEmotional Intelligence Test (Davis, 2011). The internal validity and reliability of the MSCEIThave been found to be high even while correlations to personality remain low (Davis, 2011). Theinstrument has been refined multiple times since 1990 using normative samples and factor
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 13analysis (Davis, 2011). The MSCEIT was used for this study to measure the ability model(Davis, 2011). PROJECT MANAGER COMPETENCIES Managerial competence is typically described across four skill areas: conceptual skills,diagnostic skills, technical skills, and interpersonal skills (Davis, 2011). For a manager to beeffective, competence must be demonstrated while fulfilling interpersonal, informational, anddecisional roles (Davis, 2011). Managers require competence across these standard dimensionsbecause the role has a variety of demands, resources, and requirements (Davis, 2011). The performance of managers who work on projects is an important factor in the successfulcompletion of a project (Davis, 2011). Dedicated project managers increase the success rates oftheir projects, and project managers are held accountable for the project results (Davis,2011). Organizations that utilize project managers are thus responsible for having someunderstanding of the competencies that the role requires if they wish to observe highperformance levels (Davis, 2011). Most researchers agree that project managers must betechnically, interpersonally, and administratively skilled, as is the case with most managers(Davis, 2011). Project managers need competencies in planning, monitoring, staffing, andexecuting the project (Davis, 2011). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledgestates that a competent project manager must be able to manage scope, schedule, cost, quality,staffing, communication, risk, and procurement -- all components of a project management plan(p. 75) (Davis, 2011). PMI has offered a model of project performance that includes fourclusters: application area knowledge, general management knowledge, understanding the projectenvironment, and interpersonal skills (Davis, 2011). Here, each cluster is seen as important andinfluential enough to impact the other clusters, improving the success or increasing the failure of
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 14a project (Davis, 2011). The interpersonal skills cluster from the PMBOK(R) Guide model includes effectivecommunication, influencing, leadership, motivation, problem solving, and negotiation andconflict management (Davis, 2011). Four of the skills from the interpersonal cluster(communication, motivation, problem solving, and conflict management) were used in this studydue to the acceptance of the PMBOK(R) Guide in the project management community and thehigh validity of these factors (Davis, 2011). Numerous standards identify these factors asrelevant in the project management profession, even outside of PMI. Motivation, conflictmanagement, problem resolution, and communication are listed as competencies in theInternational Project Management Association (IPMA) competency baseline (ICB) (Davis,2011). Communication, motivation, problem solving, and conflict management are frequentthemes in studies and models of project manager performance (Davis, 2011). Interpersonal skills are a common factor in project manager performance models because theyare vital to success. It is difficult to manage risk, resolve stakeholder conflict, or motivate aproject team while overlooking the importance of interpersonal skills (Davis, 2011). The mostsignificant challenges when implementing a project are often people-related -- factors such aschanging mind-sets, motivating employees, creating honest and timely communication, buildingcommitment, and navigating corporate culture (Davis, 2011). This should not be overlooked tooquickly (Davis, 2011). Gillard and Price (2005) found that interpersonal adaptability, includingthe appropriate use of social power, is essential for building relationships in project settings(Davis, 2011). Unless project managers are working by themselves, interpersonal skills appearquite beneficial, if not flatly required (Davis, 2011). One study of 1,400 chief financial officers (CFOs) found that innovations in technology are
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 15increasing the speed of interpersonal interactions, showcasing employees who have interpersonalskills and exposing those who lack these skills to wider audiences (Davis, 2011). Theinterpersonal skills of communication, motivation, conflict management, and problem solvingare themes in the project management literature (Davis, 2011). These are the factors used in theProject Manager Interpersonal Competency Inventory (PMICI) for this study, and the measureswere created by coding themes in the prominent models and theories of each domain. Forcommunication competence, for example, scales were based on encoding, decoding,interference, and medium criteria (Davis, 2011). Ancillary evidence suggests that EI may have aunique relationship with these interpersonal domains, providing an avenue for development andutilization (Davis, 2011). New data describing the relationship between emotional intelligenceand project manager interpersonal competencies is important in the advancement of bothconstructs because it illuminates the potential exchange (Davis, 2011). EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND INTERPERSONAL COMPETENCE The case for a potential relationship between EI and interpersonal competence is supported byprevious studies reporting meaningful and even significant relationships between EI and theindividual competency domains of communication, motivation, conflict management, andproblem solving (Davis, 2011). Competent communicators, for example, were observed to utilizeempathy more frequently (Davis, 2011). Empathy is a standard behavior or factor in mixedmodels of EI (Davis, 2011). Individuals with high EI demonstrate empathy more (Davis, 2011).This creates a link between EI and communication (Davis, 2011). Henderson (2008) expandedthis connection by reporting that EI and the encoding and decoding concepts of communicationare actually quite similar (Davis, 2011). If the Basic Emotions Theory is correct, it is plausible to
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 16suggest certain individuals have abilities or tendencies that enhance their ability to communicate,based on their level of emotional and procedural comprehension (Davis, 2011). Leban (2003) found that overall EI scores were correlated significantly with the inspirationalmotivation component of transformational leadership (Davis, 2011). The ability model was usedin this study (Davis, 2011). This suggests that EI is related to motivation within the context oftransformation. Since EI is based on the interpersonal and intrapersonal components of MultipleIntelligence Theory, it is reasonable to conclude that some individuals have a higher ability inthese areas, and this impacts their ability to motivate (Davis, 2011). The very root of the wordemotion is motere, the Latin verb, which means to move, suggesting emotions trigger an impulseto act (Davis, 2011). Some individuals, even project managers, may have an enhancedunderstanding of these triggers (Davis, 2011). Emotions are powerful motivational forces (Davis,2011). Malek (2000) found that individuals with higher EI are more likely to resolve conflicteffectively, using more collaborative styles of conflict resolution (Davis, 2011). Sy and Cote(2004) suggested that individuals with high EI are better at managing conflicting paradigms,managing their own emotions, and aligning the goals of groups (Davis, 2011). Goleman (1998a)lists conflict management as a measure within his EI tool, the ECI. While these examples do notexplicitly look at project managers or, specifically, EI, a case exists that a relationship of somekind may be present (Davis, 2011). The EI of an individual has been reported to have some correlationswith organizational learning, executive intuition, and performance on time-pressured, decisionmaking tests (Davis, 2011). Emotions appear to influence decision-making processes (Davis,2011). These studies provide a cluster of findings suggesting that higher EI assessment scores
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 17may result in higher problem-solving competence (Davis, 2011). Through anxiety and uncertainty, change and emotions are interlinked (Davis, 2011). Carusoand Wolfe (2002) found that individuals with high EI are typically more comfortable withambiguity and change in the workplace (Davis, 2011). Project management is a type of changemanagement (Davis, 2011). Emotions may be utilized or understood in better ways by certainindividuals, increasing the likelihood of competence (Davis, 2011). Mayer and Salovey (2004)verified this in an earlier study when they found that EI influences the effectiveness of theindividual when engaging in change management behaviors (Davis, 2011). This study narrows tosee if this conclusion holds true when narrowing to the project management domain andinterpersonal competence (Davis, 2011). DISCISSIONThe study uncovered several themes that appear to be worthy of future consideration inorganizations, in research, and in the field of project management (Davis, 2011). Davis (2011)indicates that the first theme found in this study had a week and mixed relationship betweenEmotional Intelligence (ability model) and interpersonal competency ratings. While theMSCEIT branches of managing emotions and understanding emotions did show singularrelevant relationships worthy of consideration, the relationships appear to be influenced by othervariables, submissive to other variables, or inadequate to suggest a meaningful relationship ordirect unsupported application in the business setting (Davis, 2011). This means that the abilitymodel of EI may not have a strong relationship with interpersonal competencies in projectmanagers (Davis, 2011). Davis (2011) also establish that in the second theme in this study is thatthe managing emotions branch of the MSCEIT is the most viable scale within the tool for
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 18predicting probabilities across all four of the PM interpersonal competency domains. This themedoes not suggest that the managing emotions branch has a strong relationship with PMinterpersonal competence, but it does suggest that this branch appears to retain some relevance inorganizations and the project manager role (Davis, 2011). The third theme was that projectmanager interpersonal competencies have a significant relationship with EQ-i scores (Davis,2011). Davis 2011, indicates that this is seen as a plausible conclusion because the EQ-imeasures adaptability, impulse control, stress management, optimism, and general mood. TheEQ-i appears to have measures that are related to these competencies (Davis, 2011). It isdifficult to ignore the EQ-i because 14 statistically significant relationships were found withinterpersonal competencies named in PM literature (Davis, 2011). A more frequent anddeliberate use of the EQ-i in the project setting and in organizations is a valid implication formodern business because the EQ-i has consistent and strong correlations with PM interpersonalcompetency ratings (Davis, 2011). If leaders and managers see effective project managers withhigh levels of interpersonal competence desirable, it is reasonable to consider the EQ-I (Davis,2011). The use of the EQ-i in the project management office can be very valuable because itmeasures variables such as stress management and adaptability (Davis, 2011). A fourth themehere is that the MSCEIT and EQ-i scores were highly correlated for project managers in thecontinental United States (David, 2011). With the exception of the understanding emotionsbranch of the MSCEIT, this study found multiple large correlations between every branch of theMSCEIT to every branch of the EQ-i(David, 2011). This implies that the MSCEIT and EQ-imeasure overlapping or related clusters of variables(David, 2011). The conclusion here is notsuggesting the MSCEIT and EQ-i measure the same concept, but they do appear to have a veryvalid relationship to each other (David, 2011). The fifth theme identified here was that the EQ-i
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 19has stronger and more consistent relationships (than the MSCEIT) with project managerinterpersonal competence (David, 2011). This suggests that tools measuring adaptation, stresstolerance, optimism, flexibility, impulse control, and coping (Bar-On, 2000) are more valuable inthe project setting and with project managers (than EI alone) (David, 2011). This cross-section ofinterrelated emotional and social competencies, skills, and facilitators (Bar-On, 2008) appears tobe more relevant than the cognitive ability to process emotions in the role of project managerbecause the correlations between the broader measures are consistent (David, 2011). Emotionalintelligence increases the likelihood of moderating variables relating to interpersonal competencein the role of project manager; it is not strongly related to interpersonal competence alone(David, 2011). This is true in the dynamic world of organizations because they differ greatlyfrom the classroom setting or a written test (David, 2011). The variety and intensity ofenvironmental stimuli require consideration for more than knowledge or intelligence becausethere are many activities and processes that influence behavior (David, 2011). The sixth themefound as an implication in this study is the consistent relationship between the ability model andthe EQ-i version of the mixed model with conflict management and problem solving competencein project managers (Davis, 2011). Not only did conflict management and problem solvingcompetence show the only two statistically significant relationships with the MSCEIT, but thesetwo competencies also had the highest correlations with the EQ-I (Davis, 2011). Conflictmanagement and problem solving competence clearly have a relationship with both theoreticallenses of EI (Davis, 2011). Organizations and project offices may benefit from this findingbecause it gives them a criterion and framework for improving these two domains (Davis, 2011).The tools could be used to guide resource allocation or training strategies when conflict andproblem solving competence are anticipated (or weak) in the organization (Davis, 2011). One
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 20pattern that is found frequently in this study and with each statistical test is the undeniableinfluence of many mental processes that appear inadequate and exposed in the absence of eachother (Davis, 2011). Contextually defined behavioral tendencies and proficiencies in dynamicsocial environments attributed solely to a causal relationship with the ability model of EI may befrankly incomplete or even misleading (Davis, 2011). Multiple brain functions mitigate andcombine prior to actual behavior (Davis, 2011). The ability model appears to primarily increasethe likelihood of emotionally laden moderating variables, reasonably represented by the EQ-i,which in turn show relationships to interpersonal competence equal to or greater than personalityalone (Davis, 2011). The ability model does not strongly correlate with interpersonal competencyratings itself in the role of project manager (Davis, 2011). This is an important finding in thisstudy because of three reasons: the ability model (MSCEIT) had weak and inconsistentcorrelations with interpersonal competency ratings (PMICI), the moderating variables of themixed model (EQ-i) had strong and consistent correlations with interpersonal competencyratings (PMICI), and the ability model (MSCEIT) and mixed model (EQ-i) had strong consistentcorrelations (Davis, 2011). Behavior and social competence is a function of multiple conscious and subconsciouscognitive and noncognitive processes, including general personality (extroversion,conscientiousness, self-control, independence, anxiety) and contextual disposition (values,optimism, self-confidence, temperamental composition, happiness). Individuals must not onlyhave EI, but they must also be motivated to act on this insight (Davis, 2011). These threeprocesses overlap and combine with emotional and social factors to produce moderatingvariables correlated with interpersonal competence (Davis, 2011). The moderating variables ofthe EQ-i are designed to measure effective adaptation and coping, which appears to have face
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 21validity in the project management realm (Davis, 2011). The EQ-i clearly describes some of thevariables moderating the relationship between ability model EI, as measured by the MSCEIT,and the interpersonal competency ratings project managers receive, as measured by the PMICI(Davis, 2011). There was not one MSCEIT factor that added predictive validity above andbeyond the strongest factor of the EQ-i for any of the interpersonal competency domains (Davis,2011). There were only two significant relationships found between the MSCEIT andinterpersonal competency domains (Davis, 2011). These results suggest that the mixed model ofemotional intelligence is able to amplify the significance of the ability model to interpersonalcompetence by combining the ability model factors with complementary factors that onlytogether demonstrate consistent relationships in the business setting (Davis, 2011).
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE 22 ReferencesDavis, S. A. (2011). Investigating the Impact of Project Managers’ Emotional Intelligence on Their Interpersonal Competence. Project Management Journal, 4(42), 37-57.