The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta‐analysis

verifiedmedium profile · Journal of Organizational Behavior · 2011

O'Boyle, Ernest H.; Humphrey, Ronald H.; Pollack, Jeffrey M.; Hawver, Thomas H.; Story, Paul A.

10.1002/job.714 · CrossRef: verified

How this was studied

paradigm: positivistpurpose: explanatory causaldesign: meta analytic synthesisidentification: nonetime: cross sectionaldata: quantitative survey

A meta-analytic synthesis — it pools many primary studies rather than running a single design, so there is no single-study diagram.

analysis: meta analysis · validity (validity): internal addressed · external addressed · construct addressed · statistical addressed · classifier confidence 0.9

What this article reports

The findings we extracted from this work, normalized into Principia’s relationship form (X → Y). Each feeds the synthesized models below.

emotional intelligence eitask performance

r = 0.28 · k=43 · grade A · unverified

emotional intelligence eioverall job performance

r = 0.28 · grade A · unverified

Models this article informs

The meta-analytic priors this article contributes evidence to — its place in the broader synthesis.

In the authors’ words

The article’s own abstract.

Abstract This meta‐analysis builds upon a previous meta‐analysis by (1) including 65 per cent more studies that have over twice the sample size to estimate the relationships between emotional intelligence (EI) and job performance; (2) using more current meta‐analytical studies for estimates of relationships among personality variables and for cognitive ability and job performance; (3) using the three‐stream approach for classifying EI research; (4) performing tests for differences among streams of EI research and their relationships with personality and cognitive intelligence; (5) using latest statistical procedures such as dominance analysis; and (6) testing for publication bias. We classified EI studies into three streams: (1) ability‐based models that use objective test items; (2) self‐report or peer‐report measures based on the four‐branch model of EI; and (3) “mixed models” of emotional competencies. The three streams have corrected correlations ranging from 0.24 to 0.30 with job performance. The three streams correlated differently with cognitive ability and with neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Streams 2 and 3 have the largest incremental validity beyond cognitive ability and the Five Factor Model (FFM). Dominance analysis demonstrated that all three streams of EI exhibited substantial relative importance in the presence of FFM and intelligence when predicting job performance. Publication bias had negligible influence on observed effect sizes. The results support the overall validity of EI. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Note: Correction added on 22 July 2010 after first publication online on 29 June 2010. The affiliations for Ronald H. Humphrey and Thomas H. Hawver have been corrected in this version of the article.

What the literature says about it

Attributed, open-access quotes from other works that cite this article, plus the citation-graph verdict tally. Corroborations and disputes, in one place — the honest-broker view.

1 supportinglegacy verdicts

No open-access quotations have been captured yet.

Assembled from Principia’s registry — bibliographic record, extracted effect sizes, the models they inform, and open-access citing literature.