Investigating the Impact of Project Managers’ Emotional Intelligence on Their Interpersonal Competence Steven A. Davis Adler Graduate School, Richfield, MN, USA ABSTRACT This article summarizes recent research that, examined the impact ef project managers’ em tional ntligence (El) on observations of inter: personal competence The gol waste determine whether El assesement scores show significant relationship wth the interpersonal competency ratings projet managers recive, Assessments based on the ability model (Mayer, Sslovey, & Carase, 2002) and mited model (B4F.0n, 2000) OF El were ulized, Resuts indicate meaningtul Felationships with both models and the domains of conflict management and problem svn. The mixed model outperformed the abi ity modal, demonstrating a consistent relation hiptallinterpersonal domains Expanded use of he mixed model appears warranted KEYWORDS: emotional inzaigence;abity ‘model mined model interpersonal compe: mal Vol. £2, No, (©2017 bythe Proee: Management aiute Publehed online in Wily Online Liray (leyorelirarecan). DOF 10002/om) 2026) INTRODUCTION ternational economic figures indicate a significant and growing use of project management in the global economy (World Bank, 2005; Yatim, Bredillet, & Ruiz, 2009), In order to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage, an organization's chosen strategy must be reinforced (M. Porter, 1980). A common method of reinforcement is projects. Projects need to integrate and align with business strategy to help achieve organizational goals (Dinsmore, 1998). Organizations that excel with the use of projects may bbe more capable of responding to risk or opportunities. Annual spending on projects is now in the billions (Anantatmula, 2008). This figure continues to ‘row year after year (B. H. Reich & Wee, 2006). Itis difficult to overlook the increasing demand for better, faster, and more cost-effective projects (anantatmula, 2008; Phillips, Bothell, & Snead, 2002). The growing use of project management creates a growing importance for the role of project manager. Researchers have long debated the skills (Dutta, 2000) and competencies, (Gehring, 2007) that are beneficial in the project manager role that may reduce project failures (Gillard & Price, 2005), Researchers have also debated the value and applicability of emotional intelligence (ED in organizations (Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005) and the value of the various assessment tools available (Jordan, 2000; Mayer, 2001), Few studies have proposed research questions investigating the relationship that may exist between these two domains or between factors of EI assessment instruments and interperson- al competence with project managers (Turner & Lloyd-Walker, 2008). The present research emphasized individual project managers as the unit of analysis and offers empirical data that may benefit researchers and practi- tioners of both fields by clarifying any relationship that may exist between Afferent models of EI and interpersonal competence constructs in the role of project manager. The findings here hope to contribute to existing EI theo- ry, EI model development, the training and development of project man- agers, and the interpersonal competencies of those who manage change through projects. In 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 and their organizations’ ability to ‘execute this change (IBM, 2008), New research on EI and the interpersonal ‘competencies of project managers is relevant because both domains may offer avenues that fuel the effectiveness of organizational adaptability. High project failure rates and inept abilities to change must bring attention to ‘those ultimately responsible for the success of a project (DiVincenzo, 2006) The need for projects and project success is placing a renewed emphasis, none very unique role: the project manager. In 1998, the largest credential- certifying organization of project managers in the world, the Project ly 2011 Project Management Journal © 00: 101002/en) 37Investigating the Impact of Project Managers’ Emotional Intelligence Management Institute (PM, had 43,000 members (DiVincenzo, 2008) ‘This organization now has over 340,000 members (PMI, 2011), an increase of 790% in 12 years, One can only specu- late about the growth of the project ‘management profession in 5 or 10 more years, but the trend is clear: this num- bers going up rapidly. The US, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does not classify project man- agers as an occupation. This is one of many signals suggesting an increasing gap between investment and demand fon the one hand and knowledge and expertise on the other Compared to general management or leadership lter- ature, the field of project management is very young, It has been criticized for a scanty theoretical basis (Shenhar, 2001), and only 41% of projects were recently found to meet their objectives on time, ‘on budget, and on quality (IBM, 2008), These trends suggest research with project managers is needed, Improved knowledge and awareness appear to be beneficial Ironically or not, another concept has gained momentum along a very similar timeline: a concept called emo- tional intelligence. New books and periodicals appear year after year. Most organizations seem to appreciate that EL has some relationship to perfor- ‘mance, but the understanding of hows, where, and why is unclear (Busso, 2003) The concepts and tools of EL are used in organizations, but the validity and application of the construct remain @ major concern (Conte, 2005; D. V. Day, Schleicher, Unckless, & Hiller, 2002) The very definition of the concept remains unclear Zeidner, Matthews, & Roberts, 2004), This lack of clarity is reflected in contemporary business, where polls of human resource profes- sionals found most feel incompetent ‘on the subject (Stephens, 2007), despite claims of massive applicability in organizations (Goleman, 1998) Most published research on EI and performance is conducted in laborato- ry settings or with student populations 38 suyz01 Project Management Journal (Kerr, Garvin, Heaton, & Boyle, 2006; Lopes, Salovey, & Straus, 2003), These results may not be applicable to orga- nizations or projects. As a result researchers have called for further stud- ies that clarify the value and applicabil- ity of BI in organizations (Caruso, 2008; Gooty, 2007; Hoffman & Frost, 2006; Humphrey, Curran, Morris, & Woods, 2006; Kerr etal, 2006; Lopes etal, 2003; Mauchinsky, 2000), The exact magnitude and predictive validity of EI continue o vary by situation (Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004). The investigation here is in response to these trends and. calls for research, The primary goal of the research ‘was to determine ifthe ability model of EI (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002), as measured by the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT), shows a correlation across four inter- personal competencies common in project manager performance models, These four domains are communica- ‘ion, motivation, conflict management, and problem solving, The first four research questions asked whether proj- fect manager scores on the MSCEIT show a statistically significant relation- ship with the ratings they receive from. those they work with for each domain, The secondary goal of the research ‘was to determine which components of the ability model of EI Mayer et al,,2002) show a relationship with a popular mixed model, the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (Bar-On, 2000). The ability model and mixed model were also explored to see which had a stronger and. ‘more consistent relationship to interper- sonal competency ratings across the same four domains. The two research, questions for this second focus of the study were exploratory in nature and emphasized the similarities and differ- ences of the two EI tools regarding their relevance to each other and the interper- sonal competency domains. Theory and Hypotheses The ontological perspective for this research is that emotional awareness and emotional knowledge have rele- vance in organizations because firms ‘must utilize human capital, and humans inherently express emotions individual- ly and when interacting, The epistemo- logical perspective in this study views emotional intelligence and interperson- al competency factors as constructs dif- ficult to measure but sufficiently defined for evaluations of relevance, relation- ships between each other, and compari- son to each other. The following theories provide a foundation for these perspec- tives and are followed by the new hypotheses for this study. Personal Construct Theory (Kelly, 1955) predicts that proposed changes in opposition to esteemed core values will elicit intense negative behaviors. Project managers must integrate proj- fect requirements from diverse groups. Stakeholders may protect the status quo if they are emotionally invested or reliant on it for stability (Huy, 1999) Emotional intelligence models often have a branch measuring an awareness fof emotions in others. Perhaps emo- tional intelligence signifies individuals with an understanding of these rela- tionships The Theory of Multiple Intelligences GH, Gardner, 1983) proposes a frame- ‘work of cognitive intelligence—one that proposes segregation into multiple “kinds of intelligence. These subsets include musical, bodily kinesthetic, log- ical-mathematical, linguistic, spatial, interpersonal, and intrapersonal intelli gence, Most modern EI scholars point ‘to what this author called “interperson- al” and “intrapersonal” intelligences. Emotional Intelligence Theory (Goleman, 1898b), which is also called Primal Leadership Theory, predicts that the EI of leaders is tied to their per- formance. Project’ managers may assume leadership roles, or need to lead at certain points in the project life cycle. This may imply that the EI con- struct would help predict project man- ager performance, especially if they lead or assume leadership roles during a project.Transformational Leadership Theory (Bass, 1985) predicts that one’s ability to create transformational change is pre dicted by the ability to create idealized influence, individual consideration, inspirational motivation, and intellec tual stimulation, Using the Trait Meta Mood Scale (TMMS), Salovey, Brackett, and Mayer (2004) found a strong cor- relation between the TMMS and inspi rational motivation, These same authors (Salovey et al, 2004) hypothe sized that the EI construct would be found to predict change agent per- formance, Pethaps there is a unique correlation between EI and certain types of change—not just leadership, with transformational leadership explicitly noting “transformational” change Basic Emotions Theory (Mesquita, 2001) predicts that universal patterns of individual facial and vocal expressions exist across cultures. Emotions are seen here as intra-individual states rather than processes unfolding in a social context, Since some patterns of emo sions exist across cultures, according to the theory, it may be plausible that these fundamental similarities in emo sional information are understood and utilized by some individuals more than others, and this ability impacts per- formance, The theoretical basis for the con- struct of an EI is grounded in the Theory of Multiple Intelligences and Basic Emotions Theory perspectives (Young, 2004), The ability model and mixed models of emotional intelligence emphasize the factors and concepts of these two theories differently. The abil ity model is primarily concerned with intelligence or the interplay of cognition and emotion, and defines emotional intelligence as the ability to identify, use, understand, and manage emotions (Caruso & Wolfe, 2002), This model may be viewed as an individual’: potential for utilizing emotional information (Mayer & Salovey, 1997), The mixed trait model of emotional intelligence views the concept more broadly. The mixed trait model does not claim co directly measure cognitive aptitude but instead noncognitive competencies (Bar-On, 1996), Theoretically, there is less emphasis on the Theory of Multiple Intelligences and Basic Emotions Theory because the focus is on the clus- ters of interrelated emotional and social competencies, skills, and facilitators that impact intelligent behavior (Bar- On, 2008), ‘The four primary research ques- tions for this study were presented as formal hypotheses and are parsimo- nious, repeatable, and measurable Bach primary research question asked ‘whether project manager scores on the ‘MSCEIT (Mayer et al, 2002) have a sta- tistically significant relationship with the ratings they receive from others on each of the four interpersonal compe- tencies (communication, motivation, conflict management, and problem solving). The secondary research ques- tions focused on two areas. The first question asked if there was a relation- ship between MSCEIT (Mayer et al, 2002) and EQ-i (Bar-On, 2000) scores of project managers. The second question asked if the EQ-i (Bar-On, 2000) always outperforms the MSCEIT (Mayer et al. 2002) when measuring correlation (0 project manager interpersonal compe- tency ratings. The secondary research questions were not expressed as hypotheses because they are explorato- ry and supplemental in nature, Each formal hypothesis for the primary research questions used the MSCEIT (Mayer et al, 2002), which utilizes the ability model of El, to measure the independent variables. Each overall MSCEIT score was utilized for the pri- mary research questions and successive formal hypotheses. A questionnaire measuring four factors of project man- ager interpersonal competence was then utilized to measure the dependent variables (motivation, communication, conflict management, and problem solving). Each of these dependent vari- ables is strongly supported as interper- sonal competencies needed in project uy 2012 Project Management Journal managers (Brill, Bishop, & Walker, 2006; DiVincenzo, 2006; Gehring, 2007; Gillard & Price, 2005; Henderson, 2008; Moorhead & Griffin, 2001; PMI, 2008; Schmid & Adams, 2008; Spurlock, 2000), Clear support for the variables of this study and examples of their validi- ty are provided in the proceeding sec- tions. In expressions of each hypothesis, the symbol y represents the mean of, project manager EI scores on the MSCEIT (Mayer et al, 2002) for their group based on their high or low inter- personal competency rating mean. Each hypothesis was tested separately, and groups were defined for each ques- tion based on the ratings project man- agers received from others on that interpersonal competency. The symbol Lrepresents the group of project man- agers who were rated below the (otal population's mean on a particular interpersonal competency. The symbol Hrepresents the group of project man- agers rated above the total population mean on a particular interpersonal competence. The symbol N represents each interpersonal competency domain (communication, motivation, conflict management, or problem solv- ing) H1—tg (HNL = wONTD oF wiNL > ‘a(NED}: The emotional intelligence scores of project managers with low N competence ratings are grester ‘than orequalto the emotional intel- ligence scores of project managers with high N competence ratings, HI—4g NL) < pONED|: The emo- ional intelligence scores of project ‘managers with low N competence ratings ate lower than the emotional intelligence ecores of project mat agers with high N competence rat- ings Emotional Intelligence In the early 20th century, Darwin began reporting that emotional expression was akey component of survival and adapia- tion (Bar-On, 2006). This was followed or 105002/pm) 39Investigating the Impact of Project Managers’ Emotional Intelligence by studies of social intelligence by Thorndike (1920), Wechsler (1939), Wedeck (1947), and Hemphill (1959) ‘Themes began to emerge suggesting ‘many forms of intelligence (H, Gardner, 1983; Rosenthal, 1977), and studies began to support the notion that certain individuals had higher skills and abilities with emotions (Buck, 1984; Buck, Savin, Miller, & Caul, 1972; Eckman, 1982; Sternberg, 1985). The origination of the {erm emotional intelligence came from a 1985 unpublished dissertation by Wayne Payne, a PhD student from The Union Institute (Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005; Polito, 2007). Salovey and Mayer (1990) used the term EI in the first published coining of the term, and Bar-On (1992) expanded upon their ability-based ‘model to argue at the time that Elis in fact a nomenclature of multiple capabil- ities, Tis is the genesis of what became the ability model and later the first mixed model—the mixed model of EI being the broader of the two, This was where many of the first debates began to take place, as scholars maneuvered on the real definition of an EI construct. After years of debate and energized by the work of New York University neu- robiologist Joseph LeDowx and University of Iowa neurobiologist Antonio Damasio, Daniel Goleman wrote a book. This book is commonly noted as the key event responsible for the proliferation of the EI construct. ‘This book was Goleman’s 1995 publica- tion, Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can ‘Matter More Than IQ (Caruso, Mayer, & Salovey, 2002; Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005; Goleman, 1995; Polito, 2007; Sternberg & Ben-Zeey, 2001), In the following years, various publications (Gibbs, 1995) and new or updated models (Bar-On, 1997; Cooper & Sawaf, 1997; Goleman, 1998b) began to emerge. Some scholars posited that the construct is really a form or component of social intelligence (Caruso et al, 2002). Others proposed that the construct is actually a form of practical intelligence (Fox & Spector, 2000). The central premise in each of these interpretations is that the ability 40. .uly2011 Project Management Journal to integrate cognition with emotion is important and valuable, it varies by individual, and there are beneficial applications. The strongest research stream sup- porting the applicability of EI in organi- zations is that of leadership, where high correlations have been found between El and performance (Cavallo & Brienza, 2008; Chrusciel, 2006; Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005; L. Gardner & Stough, 2002; Goleman; 1988a; Goleman, Boyatzis, & MeKee, 2002; Herkenhoff, 2004; Kerr et al,, 2006; Sy & Cote, 2004), Studies using EI tools have found relationships with an individual’ ability to handle stress (Bachman, Stein, Campbell, & Sitarenios, 2000; Chrusciel, 2006; Humphrey, Curran, Morris, & Woods, 2006; Lusch & Serpkeuci, 1990; Seligman, 1990), create sales growth or recruit effectively (Bar-On, 2004; Cherniss & Adler, 2008; Goleman, 1998a; Luskin, Aberman, & DeLorenzo, 2008; Pilling & Erogla, 1994; Spencer, McClelland, & Kelner, 1997; Spencer & Spencer, 1983), reduce turnover in their teams or them- selves (Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005; Leslie & Van Velsor, 1996; McClelland, 1999; Stephens, 2007; Tucker, Sojka, Barone, & McCarthy, 2000), and build effective or productive relationships at work (Book, 2000; Caruso & Wolfe, 2002; Goleman, 1998b, 2001), among others. The tools used in these studies generally fall into one of two groups: ability models and. mixed models, The ability model is skill-based and focuses exclusively on cognitive apti- tudes, much like an 1Q test; has right and wrong answers; and comes from a Jong line of social psychology. Today this is usually measured by the Mayer- Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (Mayer et al, 2002), which is an individual assessment and has four clusters: perceiving emotions, under- standing emotions, managing emo- ions, and using emotions. Each of these individual clusters was examined. in the secondary or exploratory part of this study as variables, The ability model is primarily concerned with cognitive aptitude and the intellectualization of emotional information, The mixed model is a broader inter- pretation and definition of emotional intelligence, Mixed models view El as @ set of noncognitive competencies (Bar- On, 1996) including personal, social, and emotional factors. The most com- ‘mon instruments used today to meas- lure this model are the Emotional Competency Inventory (ECD) (Hay Group, 1999) and the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) (Bar-On, 2000). The ECI (or mixed competency model) includes four clusters of factors, including self-awareness, self- management, social awareness, and relationship management (Goleman, 2001). The EQ-i (mixed trait model) uses a five-part definition for emotion- al intelligence, including clusters on intrapersonal EQ, interpersonal EQ, adaptability, stress management, and general mood (Bar-On, 2000). Each cluster of the EQ-i is a variable in this study examined in the secondary or exploratory research questions. Proponents of the ability model argue that correlations have been found between the mixed model and personality (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000), while the ability model shows discriminant validity from personality (Cherniss & Adler, 2008), The clarifica- tion that needs to be made is that authors of the mixed models do not claim to measure emotional intelli- gence, despite any generalizations made from their titles. The ability model focuses on cognitive aptitude (ay & Carroll, 2004) and objective skill-based tests (Mayer et al., 2000) ‘The mixed models focus on emotional- ly and socially competent behaviors Bar-On, 2000) or behaviors important to performance at work (Goleman, 19988). While earlier mixed model pro- posals were offered as an “interpreta- tion’ of emotional intelligence (Bar-On, 1996; Goleman, 1995), these have later been clarified as distinct concepts sep- arate from emotional intelligence while still retaining similarities (Bar-On,2008; Goleman, 2001), For these rea- sons, the operational definition for emotional intelligence used here is the seminal definition offered by Salovey and Mayer (1990) stating that emotion- al intelligence is the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one’ thinking and actions, The FCI {Hay Group, 1999) was not used for this study as an alternative mixed model because the ECT often has very strong results (Sala, 2008), some so overwhelming that researchers have called for an examination of the tool's real predictive validity (Cherniss & Adler, 008). The ECI is not offered in a self-assessment version, opening an evaluation of the tool up to new relia bility and validity concerns. Some fac- tors of the ECI may even measure high performance directly, such as service, developing others, organizational awareness, achievement, change cata- lyst, and transparency. Comparing the ECT factors to interpersonal competency factors may be a duplication of factors Since litte is known about the predictive validity of the EQ-i in organizations (Cherniss & Adler, 2008) and the tool is widely used (Gowing, 2001), it seems reasonable to explore this interpreta- tion of the mixed model in the business setting in the interest of new empirical data The psychometric aspect ofthe Bar- (On model of emotional intelligence is the measure of the construct, which ‘was designed to measure the model, the Emotional Quotient Inventory (Bar- On, 2000). Since 1980, over one million people have taken the EQ-i (Bar-On, 2008). The instrument has been refined using factor analysis and normative samples in North America, Asia, Europe, South America, and Africa. Some correlations to personality tests hhave been found (Roberts, Zeidner, & Matthews, 2001), and this is due to the broader nature of the model and mea- sure, The EQ-iwas used for this study to ‘measure the mixed model, ‘The psychometric aspect of the ‘Mayer-Salovey-Caruso model of emo- tional intelligence is the measure of the construct that was designed to measure their model, the Mayer-Salovey Emotional Intelligence Test (Mayer et al, 2002), The internal validity and reliability of the MSCEIT have been found to be high (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2004) even while correlations to personality remain low, The instru- ment has been refined multiple times since 1990 using normative samples and factor analysis, The MSCEIT was ‘used for this study to measure the abil- ity model Project Manager Competencies Managerial competence is typically described across four skill areas: con- ceptual skills, diagnostic skis, techni- cal skils, and interpersonal. skills (Moorhead & Griffin, 001), For a man- ager to be effective, competence must bbe demonstrated while fulillng inter- personal, informational, and decisional roles (Mintzberg, 1989). Managers require competence across these stan- dard dimensions because the role has a variety of demands, resources, and requirements ‘The performance of managers who work on projects isan important factor in the successful completion ofa project (Gillard & Price, 2005; Kendra & Taplin, 2004), Dedicated project. managers increase the success rates of their proj ects (BM, 2008), and project managers axe held accountable for the project results (Kerzner, 2001), Organizations that utilize project managers are thus responsible for having some under- standing of the competencies that the role requires if they wish to observe high performance levels. Most researchers agree that project managers must be technically, interpersonally, and admin- isuraively skilled (Dutta, 2000; Frame, 1994; Pinto & Kharbanda, 1996; & Reich, 1991), as is the case with most managers. Project managers need com- petencies in planning, monitoring, Mtaffing, and executing the project uy 2012 Project Management Journal (Gilley, Eggland, & Gilley, 2002). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) (PMI, 2008), states that a competent project manager must be able to manage scope, sched- ule, cost, quality, staffing, communica- tion, risk, and procurement—all com- ponents of a project management plan (p.75). PMIhas offered a model of proj- cect performance that includes four elus- ters: application area knowledge, general ‘management knowledge, understanding the project environment, and interper- sonal skills (PMI, 2008), Here, each clus- ter is seen as important and influential enough to impact the other clusters, improving the success or increasing the failure of a project. ‘The interpersonal skills cluster from the PMBOK® Guide model includes effective communication, influencing, leadership, motivation, problem solving, and negotiation and conflict manage- ‘ment (PMI, 2008, p. 13). Four ofthe skils from the interpersonal cluster {commu- nication, motivation, problem solving, and conflict management) were used in this study due to the acceptance of the PMBOK® Guide in the project manage- ‘ment community and the high validity of these factors. Numerous standards iden- tify these factors as elevantin the project ‘management profession, even outside of PMI, Motivation, conflict management, problem resolution, and communication are listed as competencies in the International Project Management Association (IPMA) competency base- line (CB) (PMA, 2006). Communication (Anantatmula, 2008; Henderson, 2008), ‘motivation (DiVincenzo, 2006; Schmid & Adams, 2008), problem solving (Brill et al, 2006}, and conflict management (Anantatmula, 2008; Pinto & Kharbanda, 1995) are frequent themes in studies and ‘models of project manager performance. Interpersonal skills are a common factor in project manager performance models (Carbone & Gholston, 2004; Frame, 1994; Pettersen, 1991; PMI, 2007; Posner, 1987) because they are vital to success. Itis difficult to manage risk, resolve stakeholder conflict, or ox s0s002/pmj 49Investigating the Impact of Project Managers’ Emotional Intelligence motivate a project team while overlook- ing the importance of interpersonal skill. The most significant challenges when implementing a project are often people-related—factors such as chang- ing mind-sets, motivating employees, creating honest and timely communi- cation, building commitment, and nav- ‘gating corporate culture (IBM, 2008) This should not be overlooked too quickly. Gillard and Price (2005) found ‘hat interpersonal adaptability, includ- ing the appropriate use of social power, is essential for building relationships in project settings. Unless project man- agers are working by themselves, inter- personal skills appear quite beneficial, ifnot flatly required. One study of 1,400 chief financial officers (CFOs) found that innovations in technology are increasing the speed of interpersonal interactions, showeas- ing employees who have interpersonal skills and exposing those who lack these skills to wider audiences (Messmer, 1999), The interpersonal skills of com- munication (Anantatmula, 2008; Brill et al, 2006; Henderson, 2008; Kendra & ‘Taplin, 2004; Moorhead & Griffin, 2001; PMI, 2008), motivation (DiVincenzo, 2006; Gehring, 2007; Pfeffer, 1998), con- flict management (Anantatmula, 2008; Pinto & Kharbanda, 1995), and problem solving (Brill et al, 2006) are themes in the project management literature. ‘These are the factors used in the Project Manager Interpersonal Competency Inventory (PMICI for this study, and the measures were created by coding ‘themes in the prominent models and theories of each domain, For communi- cation competence, for example, scales were based on encoding, decoding, interference, and medium criteria, A. summary of the models and theories used to create the measures for each domain can be found in Table 1 Ancillary evidence suggests that EI may have a unique relationship with these interpersonal domains (Henderson, 2008; Leban, 2003; Malek, 2000; Mayer & Salovey, 2004; Singh, 2007), providing ‘an avenue for development and wiliza- 42. .uly2011 Project Management Journal sion, New data describing the relation- ship between emotional intelligence and project manager interpersonal competencies is important in the advancement of both constructs because it illuminates the potential exchange Emotional intelligence and Interpersonal Competence The case for a potential relationship between Hl and interpersonal compe- tence is supported by previous studies reporting meaningful and even signii- cant relationships between HI and the individual competency domains of communication, motivation, conflict management, and problem solving. Competent communicators for exam- ple, were observed to utlize empathy more frequently (Schmid & Adams, 2008). Empathy is a standard behavior or factor in mixed models of E (Goleman, 19982). Individuals with high EI demonstrate empathy more. This create a link between EI and com- munication, Henderson (2008) expand ed this connection by reporting that Et and the encoding and decoding con- cepts of communication are actually quite similar. If the Basic Emotions Theory (Mesquita, 2001 is correct, ts plausible to suggest certain individuals have abilities or tendencies that enhance their ability to communicate, ‘based on their level of emotional and procedural comprehension. Leban (2003) found that overall Et scores were correlated significantly with the inspirational motivation compo- nent of transformational leadership. The ability model was usedin this study This suggests dha Es related to motive tion within the context of transformation. Since Elis based on the interpersonal and inwapersonal components of Multiple Intelligence Theory GH. Gardner, 1983), itis reasonable to conclude that some individuals have a higher ability in these azeas, and this impacts their ability motivate. The very root of the word emotion i motere, the Latin verb, which means to move, suggesting emotions trigger an impulse to act (Huy, 1999) Some individuals, even project man- agers, may have an enhanced under- standing of these triggers. Emotions are powerful motivational forces (Lopes, Cote, & Salovey, 2006), Malek (2000) found that individuals with higher El are more likely to resolve conflict effectively, using more collabo- rative styles of conflict resolution. Sy and Cote (2004) suggested that individ- uals with high El are betcer at managing, conflicting paradigms, managing their ‘own emotions, and aligning the goals of groups. Goleman (1998a) lists contlict ‘management as a measure within his El tool, the ECI. While these examples do not explicitly look at project managers or, specifically, El, a case exists that a rela- tionship of some kind may be present. The EI of an individual has been reported to have some correlations with organizational learning (Singh, 2007), executive intuition (Matzler, Bailom, & Mooradian, 2007), and per- formance on time-pressured, decision- ‘making tests (Newsome, Day, & Catano, 2000). Emotions appear to influence decision-making processes (Milivojevich, 2008; Sy & Cote, 2004). These studies provide a cluster of findings suggesting that higher EI assessment scores may result in higher problem-solving com- petence, Through anxiety and uncertainty, change and emotions are interlinked (Chrusciel, 2006; French, 2001; Lundberg & Young, 2001). Caruso and Wolfe (2002) found that individuals with high EI are typically more com- fortable with ambiguity and change in the workplace. Project management is @ type of change management. Emotions maybe utilized or understood in better ways by certain individuals, increasing the likelihood of competence. Mayer and Salovey (2004) verified this in an earlier study when they found that EI influences the effectiveness of the individual when engaging in change management behaviors. ‘This. study narrows to see if this conclusion holds true when narrowing to the projectDomai Theme Communication Encoding Medium interference Decoding Motivation Desirable Realistic Aetualization Conditions Equality Relationship Conflict Management self thers dentification Negotiation Resolution Problem Solving identification Framing Diagnosis Theory or Model Information Transfer Social Constructonist Communication Process Information Transfer Communication Process Transactional Open Systems Social Constructionist Communication Process DualStructure Expectancy Procedural Justice Expectancy Procedural Justice Dual Structure ERG Dual Structure ERG Eauity Procedural Justice Equity DualStructure ERG Eauity Managerial Grid Two-Dimensional Managerial Grid Two-Dimensional Cyclical Organizational Cyclical Organizational Five Re iyelcal Decision Making Coding Change Insight Visual Representation External Representation Narrative interactional Table 1: Supporting theories and models forthe measures ofeach interpersonal domain. uy 2012 Reference Axley (1984) Spurlock (2000) Moorhead and Griffin (2001) Axley (1984) Moorhead and Griffin (2001) Tubbs and Moss (1994) Suchan and Dulek (1898) Spurlock (2000) Moorhead and Griffin (2001) Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman (1858) Porter ané Lawier (1968) Chen, Brockner, and Greenberg (2003) L. Porter and Lawler (1968) Chen et al (2003) Herzberg etal. 1958] Clayton (1972) Herzberg etal. 1953] Clayton (1972) George and Jones (2005) Chen et al (2003) George and Jones (2005) Herzberg et al. (1959) Clayton (1972) George and Jones (2005) Blake and Mouton (1964) Rahim and Bonoms (1978) Blake and Mouton (1964) Rahim and Bonoms (1978) Walton (1987) Pondy (1967) Watton (1987) Pond (1967) Thomas (1976) Walton (1987) Janis and Mann (1977) Damle (2008) Knablich and Ohissen (1998) Baver and Johnson-{air (1983) Thang and Norman (1894) Parsells (2008) Philips et al. (2008) Project Management Journal 001 101002/em) a3Investigating the Impact of Project Managers’ Emotional Intelligence ‘management domain and interperson- al competence, Methodology The study was an observational quasi- experiment using both qualitative and quantitative methods to gather data and quantitative techniques (o exam ine the relationships between the vari- ables. TWwo approaches were used in this study because competency and ability phenomena are best measured from an integrative perspective (Payne, 2003) The response variables (dependent variables) in the study were the four interpersonal competency variables obtained by the Project Manager Interpersonal Competency Inventory (Davis, 2009), The factors (independent variables) inthis study aze the total and component variables of the MSCEIT and the EQu. The factor levels are the actual total and component scores project managers received on the MSCEIT and EQ-i, The teatmentin this study was the factor-level combina tions utlized—specifically, low and high MSCEIT and EQ-i scores, which are the cvo emotional intelligence instruments. The experimental unit for the study is each individual participat- ing project manager There were five populations ofinter- est in this study: (a) project managers, tb) project sponsors, (c) project team members, (@) projet stakeholders, and (©) project participants. All of the popu- Jations were obtained with sponsorship from the Project’ Management Institutes Minnesota Chapter (PMI- MN) and Deluxe Corporation (NYSE DL, Project participants were first selected using convenience sampling fom Deluxe Corporation. This sample included individuals who worked on a project in the past year and this sample was used for PMICI refinement, Project Participants were a pilot group used to evaluate the face and construct validity of the PMICL Project participants did not provide ratings of project managers Data was collected from the project participant sample first because the 44 ly2011 Project Management Journal instrument measuring the four inter- personal competency domains (PMICD ‘was to be refined prior to use for project manager ratings. Each interpersonal domain had 15 measures based on. themes found in a literature review of each interpersonal competence: com- munication, motivation, conflict man- agement, and problem solving, The five measures scoring the “weakest’ on a scale for each respective domain were dropped. Of the ten measures Kept for each variable, the mean score for the retained problem solving measures was 5.922, the mean score for the retained communication measures was 6.122, the mean score for the retained motiva- ‘ion measures was 5.876, and the mean for the retained conflict management measures was 6.083; with 7 being rated as a strong measure" of the variable by project participants, The sampling method for this study's primary unit of measurement (project managers) utilized multistage sampling, starting first with conven- ience sampling and following second with snowball sampling (Trochim, 2005). Once the PMICI had been, refined to the second 40-question ver- sion, project managers were invited to the study over a period of 60 days. This was done with e-mail announcements, newsletters, and website announce- ments in the spring and summer of 2009. When project managers submit- ted a Volunteer and Consent Form, they were asked to recruit one of their pro}- fect team members, one project spon- sor, and one project stakeholder using a script provided by the researcher, Project team members had to be some- one currently working on the project of the project manager. The project spon- sor sample was required to consist of only current sponsors for a project of the participating project’ manager. Project stakeholders were current or future process or product owners impacted by the participating project manager's project. These groups rated the project manager. Project managers were asked to complete the MSCEIT and EQ4 online through the Multi- Health Systems website, The project manager rating groups completed the PMICT online, and these ratings were tied to project managers’ use of a series of numerical identifiers. Data analysis for this study was per- formed using the statistical software MINITAB. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each of the instruments, hypotheses were tested through the evaluation of a null hypothesis and accepted or rejected based on the rules of means testing, also known as «wo- sample f testing, as described by ‘McClave, Benson, and Sincich (2005), ‘The coefficient of correlation and coef- ficient of determination were then cal- culated comparing a series of factors from each instrument, Stepwise multi- ple regression was performed last, layer- ing different EL factors as an assessment of influence on PMICI factors and as an exploratory activity that may identify new model factors. Data and Results Participants were obtained through Deluxe Corporation e-mail invitations and the Project Management Institute's Minnesota Chapter website, In total, there were 75 participants in the study, including 26 project managers, 9 proj- fect participants, 10 project stakehold- ers, 24 project team members, and 6 project sponsors, While a larger sample would have been preferred, the goal of the research was to test hypotheses and measure correlations between the fac- tors statistically significant atthe p<0.1 level or better. Ths level of significance ‘was found in over 60 separate measure- ‘ments in the study (Tables 2, 3, and 4) ‘The validity and reliability of the study ‘were strengthened further by the use of triangulation (Creswell, 1998), multiple data collection methods, a dependent factor screening group, population parameters, and procedural standardi- zation through the use of scripts and uniform response methods, The pur- pose of this study was to answer calls for research on El and project managers byOVA PER USE UND) MAN COM MoT. CON PRO. Bd 2 mean score of 100.00. Both FI tools have an expected mean of 100. Ove o.860 O08 O62" 0.318 0202 0.201 (0349 0238 A Likert scale was used to measure PER 647" 0290 0043 04147 0190 0.356 0199. the interpersonal competencies of the project managers, with 1 being @ Use Osis 0072 -0.005 0032 0148 0015 “strongly disagree” rating and 7 being UND 0.278 0.087 0.045 0105 041 © —_a “strongly agree” rating of competence. The mean rating project managers wa oie (0740/0269 0378" wed on communicetion compe, com 0.937% 0.944" 0.965% tence from their raters was 5.589, The vat 942" agi mean score for problem solving was 5.748, The mean score for motivation con 0.931" was 5.635, and the mean score was PRO 5.591 for conflict management. ‘The first hypothesis in this study asked whether project manager scores Note, MSCET = MayerSaloey CarseEciaallnligance Tet, PMI = Pct Mager interpersonal Campetency verry, OR = Overall USCIT sere PER = Perceiving mains Branch soe USE = Using trate branch cre UND = Unestanng ertonsapeh sar MAN = Managing eaten ann onthe MSCETT have a statistically signif- cote COM = Communiaten competence arch cove MOT = Matvaton cmptence anc sate. icant relationship with the ratings they (CON = Confit managerent branch scare. PRO = Pale sling branch sare receive from others on communication “ingaes colons spilt athe p<. kee nets resem ssipncantatthep < 0025 Wve competence. A test of means was con- “ale 2 Cofino eorelaion, MSCIT an PCL ducted at the 80% (@ = 0.2), 90% (a = 01), and 95% (a = 0105) confi dlence levels, comparing the high com- petence group EI scotes to the low collecting statistically significant data The descriptive statistics were first competence group EI scores. The 90% on the relationship ofthe project man- calculated and did not yield any sur- confidence interval forthe mean differ- ager ability model and mixed models prising results, The MSCEIT scores for ence was both positive and negative, so scores with project manager interper- project managers had a mean of 98.42. the null hypothesis was not rejected sonal competency ratings. The EQ-i scores for project managers This procedure was repeated for three FO INR nt M ‘AOA cM com MoT con PRO 9 ogsim* o.833* 07s" ogg og77 0.336 0367" 048s 0.394" Ine oro | ote 756 ose 0.268 0333 «OBZ (0.306, INT ose cozaar 652" 0.255 0.280 0381" 0.289 su os os6a 0.313 0380" a4est* 0.407" ADA orm 0342 | 0.278 azz Oa om o3rs* 038" 04s" 0.398" com oss" — ogaar — o.g6s Mor os ogo con oat PRO Noe £04 = Emotional Gut ventery PAC = Peet Manager ntarparsonal Competency ventory, = Oral ED scr. t= nrapersonl branch sor. cemmpetenc branch score Pp re. F80=Frotem srg branch sore vation competence branch score. CON = Coc management bn 25 ee ‘Table 3: Coofcients of coreation £0: and PIC Jy 2011 Project Management Journal | D0! 10,002/>m) 45Investigating the Impact of Project Managers’ Emotional Intelligence £9 INR INT.) SM ADA GM Overall El oss o.6za" o.sa2™" o.sss"™ ose6r* 0583" Perceiving Emotions O.S81"™ O.S65"* O.5S1a™* OS04™* 0.466" 0.405" UsingE motions OS31"* O54 0.477 0343 0.440% 0395" Understanding 015001530449 0x24 ost o22s Managing Emotions 0.521"** 0466" 0.230 0.371" O.S62"** 0.694" Note. MSCEIT = Mayer Salovey Caruso Emstinalneligece Test. £2 0 Overall EO sare I= ED rrapersuna branch sare NT ‘SM = EO stess management ranch sare ADA EO adaptbi SIndeates cere gic athe p <0 Level inate cottons sigfcar atthep < 0.08 lvl "inate contin igniean at the p= 0.025 fv Tle 4: Coeficiens of corelation: MSCEIT and £94 additional hypotheses, one foreach inter- personal competency, using the MSCEIT and PMICI scores. The nullhypothesis was not rejected for motivation or problem solving at the 90% confidence level. The MSCEIT scores of project managers and the conflict management competence ral- ings they received on the PMICI were sta- Aisically significant at this same level, and the null hypothesis was rejected. A series of supplemental analyses took place following the hypothesis tests. The coefficient of correlation was used to measure the linear relationship between two variables (McClave et al, 2005). Variables used in these calcula- ‘ions came from the MSCETT, the EQ-i, and the PMICI, Only one correlation (Table 2) was found between the MSCEIT and PMICI tools, significant at the p< 0.1 level, and this was between ‘the managing emotions branch score of the MSCEIT and problem solving com- petency ratings from the PMICI (0.378), Performing these calculations a second ‘ime (Table 3) with the EQ-i and PMICI, total of 14 correlations were found, ranging from 0.367 (0 0.485, inclusive of significance at the p < 0.1 level or high- er. Performing these calculations a third time (Table 4) with the MSCEIT and the EQ-i, a total of 22 correlations were found, following these same guidelines of significance. 46 y2011 Project Ma ment Journal The final calculation performed was stepwise multiple regression, using the MSCEIT, EQ-i, and the PMICI. This cal- culation here was intended as a test The procedure identifies a best predic- tor of dependent variables (PMIC) from the independent variables (MSCEIT, EQ-i) and then proceeds to add a second-, third-, or fourth-best predictor variable i they add predictive power. The results here found that the EQ-i had the best predictive variable across all four interpersonal competen- cy domains (Table 5), After the primary variables were identified for each domain, the independent stepwise tests did not find a second variable from the EQ-i or MSCEIT that would add predic- tive power in a model, enforcing an alpha (a) of 0.15 for entry Discussion This study uncovered several themes that appear to be worthy of future con- sideration in organizations, in research, and in the field of project management. ‘The first theme found in this study was ‘a mixed and faint relationship between FI (he ability model) and interpersonal competency ratings. While the MSCEIT branches of managing emotions and ‘understanding emotions did show sin- gular relevant relationships worthy of consideration, the relationships appear to be influenced by other variables, sub- missive to other variables, or inadequate to suggest a meaningful relationship or direct unsupported application in the business setting, This means that the ability model of EI may not have @ strong relationship with interpersonal ‘competencies in project managers. The findings here do not tend to support the direct application of this model of EI {ree of other variables in the project set- ting or with project managers. This find- ing supports and broadens the findings ‘of Rode et al. (2007), who suggested the effects of the ability model of EI are ‘more indirect than direct in nature, The second theme in this study is that the managing emotions branch of the MSCEIT is the most viable scale within the tool for predicting probabili- ties across all four of the PM interper- sonal competency domains. This extends the same findings of Rossen (2007) and Lopes (2004) to the project manager domain. Managing emotions was selected twice by independent Retained Mallows, Variables TValue PValue Sq Cp General Mood | 201 -—«0.059 1751 6.4 Communication Adsptabilty | 227 «0.035 21.27 5.9 Problem Solving General Mood 2.04 0.055 1799«« 6.2 -—_Mativation Total EO 265 0.016 2706 6.5 Confit Management Note MSCEIT = Nayeriovey CaraeEmotaral sane ert £04 ~ Emotions uate Inventor Pc = Peet Manager nerpasonal Competency lverory. ener Moed = £0: general move branch score spabity = £03 ‘Table 5: Stepwise mutiple-egression test MSCET (0 ED cwel instrument sere. I. E94, and PHCstepwise multiple-regression tests (communication, problem solving) limited to the MSCEIT and had one of the only meaningful relationships with an interpersonal competency, problem solving (0378, p < 0.2), This theme does not suggest that the managing emotions branch has a strong relation- ship with PM interpersonal compe tence, but it does suggest that this branch appears to retain some rele- vvance in organizations and the project, ‘manager role The third theme was that project, manager interpersonal competencies hhave a significant relationship with EQ-i scores. This is seen as a plausible con clusion because the EQ-i measures adaptability, impulse control, stress management, optimism, and general mood, The face validity of these vari ables in the project setting appears quite reasonable. This is supported fur- ther by this study, Projects can change direction in a matter of days. Projects hhave deadlines and difficult goals Managing a project with numerous change requests and opposing view: points can be very stressful and dif cult, Resources may have diverse per- sonalities, other project priorities, and different models of behavior. Individuals in the PM role need to have competen- cies that are amplified, tested, and nec essary in the job. The EQ-i appears to shave measures that are related to these competencies. This finding expands on the work of DiVincenzo (2006) and Gebaring (2007) who found that success ful project managers were typically extroverted and able to handle stress, It is difficult to ignore the EQ-i because 14 statistically significant rela sionships were found with interpersonal ‘competencies named in PM literature, A mote frequent and deliberate use of the EQ-i in the project setting and in orga- nizations is a valid implication for modern business because the EQ-i has consistent and strong correlations with PM interpersonal competency ratings. If leaders and managers see effective project managers with high levels of interpersonal competence desirable, it is reasonable to consider the EQ-i, The ‘use of the EQ in the project manage- ment office can be very valuable because it measures variables such as stress management and adaptability. The factors and clusters measured by the EQ-i are found here as significant and meaningful in the role of project manager. ‘A fourth theme here is that the MSCEIT and EQ.i scores were highly correlated for project managers in the continental United States. With the exception of the understanding emo- tions branch of the MSCEIT, this study. found multiple large correlations between every branch of the MSCEIT to every branch of the EQ-i, This implies that the MSCEIT and EQ-i measure overlapping or related clusters of vari- ables. The conclusion here is not sug- gesting the MSCEIT and EQ-i measure the same concept, but they do appear tohave a very valid relationship to each other. ‘The fifth theme identified here was that the EQ4i has stronger and more consistent relationships (than the MSCETT) with project manager inter- personal competence. This suggests that tools measuring adaptation, stress tolerance, optimism, flexibility impulse control, and coping (Bar-On, 2000) are ‘more valuable in the project setting and with project managers (than EI alone). This cross-section of interrelated emo- tional and social competencies, skills, and facilitators (Bar-On, 2008) appears to be more relevant than the cognitive ability to process emotions in the role of project manager because the correla- tions between the broader measures are consistent, This supports the find- ings of Lopes (200%), who argued that emotional ability and disposition need to bbe accounted for if one is attempting to understand social adaptability. Freeland (2007) expands this list of variables by reporting numerous correlations between the EQ-i and personality. The ‘MSCEIT has been reported to have low correlations with personality (Ciarrochi, uy 2012 Project Management Journal Deane, & Anderson, 2001; Day & Carroll, 2004; Lopes et al, 2003). These studies combine with this new data to suggest that emotional and social com- petencies, personality, and disposition can outperform measures that only include emotional cognitive ability in the organizational setting. This makes sense because organizations are social- ly dynamic, Emotional intelligence increases the likelihood of moderating variables relating to interpersonal com- petence in the role of project manager; itis not strongly related to interperson- al competence alone, This is true in the dynamic world of organizations because they differ greatly from the classroom setting or a written test, The variety and intensity of environmental stimuli require consideration for more than knowledge or intelligence because there are many activities and processes ‘that influence behavior. ‘The sixth theme found as an impli- cation in this study is the consistent relationship between the ability model and the EQ-i version of the mixed model with conflict management and problem solving competence in project managers. Not only did conflict man- agement and problem solving compe- tence show the only two statistically significant relationships with the MSCEIT, but these two competencies also had the highest correlations with the EQi. Conflict management and problem solving competence clearly have a relationship with both theoreti- cal lenses of El, Organizations and proj- ect offices may benefit from this finding because it gives them a criterion and framework for improving these two domains. The tools could be used to guide resource allocation or training strategies when conflict and problem solving competence are anticipated (or \eak) in the organization, One pattern that is found frequent- ly in this study and with each statistical tests the undeniable influence of many ‘mental processes that appear inadequate and exposed in the absence of each other. Contextually defined behavioral oe 10s002/pm) 47Investigating the Impact of Project Managers’ Emotional Intelligence tendencies and proficiencies in dynamic social environments attrib- ‘uted solely to a causal relationship with the ability model of EI may be frankly incomplete or even misleading, Multiple brain functions mitigate and combine prior to actual behavior, The ability ‘model appeats to primarily increase the likelihood of emotionally laden moder- ating variables, reasonably represented by the EQ, which in turn show relation- ships (© interpersonal competence equal to or greater than personality alone. The ability model does not strongly correlate with interpersonal competency ratings itself in the role of project manager. This is an important finding in this study because of three reasons: (a) the ability model (MSCEIT) had weak and inconsistent correlations (Figure 1) with interpersonal competen- cy ratings (PMICD, (6) the moderating variables of the mixed model (Q-i) had strong and consistent correlations (Gigure 2) with interpersonal competency ratings (PMICD, and (o) the ability model (MSCETT) and mixed model (EQ-i had strong consistent correlations (Figure 3). Behavior and social competence is a function of multiple conscious and sub- conscious cognitive and noncognitive processes, including general personality (extroversion, conscientiousness, sell- control, independence, anxiety) and contextual disposition (values, opti- mism, self-confidence, temperamental composition, happiness). Individuals ‘must not only have EI, but they must also be motivated to act on this insight (ode et al, 2007). These three process- es overlap and combine with emotional and social factors to produce moderat- ing variables correlated with interper- sonal competence, The moderating variables of the EQ-i are designed to measure effective adaptation and cop- ing (Bar-On, 2000), which appears to have face validity in the project man- agement realm, The EQ clearly describes some of the variables moderat- ing the relationship between ability model EI, as measured by the MSCETT, and the interpersonal competency ratings project 43 .uly2011 Project Management Journal Ora — Perceiving \ — [Managing | Emotions Ne, Overall cevingemations branch sears Understanding tions branch sear. Managing Emotiens Using Emotions PMIcl conlet management competence branch sere, Competent Problem Solve problem solving competence branch sear, Overall MSCEIT instrument sear, Peresiving Emotions Ns SCENT using emetion branch seote, Competent Confet Manager fo [competent ae } Proslem = / SCENT per MSCEIT understanding eme IT managing emetions branch sear, Pac “Indicates coteationis significant atthe p <0. level Figure 1: MayerSalovey Caruso Emotional nvligence Test (MSCEFT) and Projet Manager Interpersonal Competency Inventor [PMI] relationships managers receive, as measured by the PMICI (Figure 4), There was not one MSCEIT factor that added predictive validity above and beyond the strongest factor of the EQ. for any of the interper- sonal competency domains (Table 5) There were only two significant rela- tionships found between the MSCEIT and interpersonal competency domains (Figure 1). These results sug- gest that the mixed model of emotional intelligence is able to amplify the signifi- ‘cance of the ability model to interperson- al competence by combining the ability ‘model factors with complementary fac- tors that only together demonstrateS _ lnvapersonal Competent > x. of (e")+}- ol) aff fo | ss Inverpersoral a] 2 \ (, ZN (i 27, Commuaiestor ee Adeptabilty oT oy > ota — . Competent General Mood 0.398 — eer =) | Ne worl scere from the Emotional Quotient Inventory Intrapersonal EO = E04 intapersona branch score. Interpersonal EO = £0: interpersonal branch scare. tess Management = EQ. stress management branch score ‘Adaprabilty = £04 adaptability branch scare. General Mood = ED general mood branch score. Competent Conflict IC conflict management competence Branch score. Competent Motivator = PMICI mativation competence ICI communication competence branch score Competent Preblem PMECI problem solving competence branch score * Indieatescorelation is significant tthe p =O level. Indicates coreation is significant a the p< 0.05 level. \ \ A Figure 2: Emotional Quotient Inventory (EO: and Projet Manager Interpersonal Competency Inventory [PMI] correlations. consistent relationships in the business setting (Figure 3) While critiques have suggested the EQ. offers the same predictive validity as personality (Antonakis, 2004), the pres- ence of 14 statistically significant correla- sions (Table 2) suggests that incremental validity may be present above and beyond personality It is reasonable to conclude that the probability of high interpersonal competence may be improved through the use of the EQ-1 because it measures a series of related independent variable clusters—not just uy 2012 Project Management Journal fone, The EQ-i has an emphasis on cop- ing (Bar-On, 2000), and this ‘may not be properly measured through general personality tests lone. While che ability model is preferred by researchers ‘Busso, 2003), it has not demonstrated validity inthis study of project managers, oe 105002/pm) 4Investigating the Impact of Project Managers’ Emotional Intelligence = FO. — 7 Interpersonal uy yN oes — S {Understanding eo (, DN } 2 i ( KI (—e Management / ) wR UX ‘ote. Perceiving Emotions = MSCEIT perceiving emotions branch score. Understanding Emotions = MSCEIT understanding emetions| branch sore, Overall El = MSCEVT overall instrument score. Managing Emetions = MSCEIT managing emotions branch scre. Using Emotions = MSCEIT using emotions branch scare. Inrapersonal E = EOintrapersonal branch sear. Interpersonal EO = EO inter personal branch score, Overall EQ = Overall seat fom the Emotional Quotient ventory, Stress Management = EQistess manage: ‘ment branch score, Adapabiliy ~ £0: branch seare. General Mood = EO: general mood branch score, *Indieatescorelatin is significant atthe p< O1 level. **Indisteseoeeation is significant atthe p < 0.05 level. **Indieates core lations significant atthe p = 0.025 level Figure 3: Correlations between the MayerSalovey Caruso Emationl nteligence Test [MSCEIT) and Emotional Qustient Inventory (EO: and appears tostruggle in many studies of applicability of emotional intelligence Implications organizations. This yields Propositions A, B, and C (Table 6), which may assist future researchers exploring the 5D 1uy2011 Project Management Journal measures, the evaluation of mixed mod- els, and the furthering of interpersonal competence in project managers. ‘This study provides relevant implica- ions for professional practice and scholarly research. These implicationswscen Fos Pact z Intrapersonal fo 7 - x ay \eoer ) J) (om (mse) KS a, (se) : nn = { cerns, | — Wwe) (or — XY — - —~ ff [- (cs) Naa, Noe, MSCEIT = MayerSalovey-Caruse Emotional ntligence Test. Understanding Emations ~ MSCEIT understanding emotions branch score, Perceiving Emations = MSCEIT peredving emotions branch sere, Overall El = Composite total MSCEIT score, Managing Emotions = MSCEIT ‘managing emotions branch sore Using Emotions = MSCEIT using emotions branch score. EO = Emetional Quotient Inventer,Inapersonal 0 EO intrapersonal Branch sear. Interpersonal EO = EO interpersonal ranch sore Overall EQ = Composite total Ei score, ‘Svess Management = EO: stress management branch sere Adaptability = EO braneh score, General Mood = EQ. genera mood branch score PIC! = Project Manager Interpersonal Competency ventory, Competent Conlet Manages = Cenflet management competeney mean rating. Competent Motwvator = Motivation competency mean ating Competent Communicator = Communication competency mean rating Competent Problem Sever = Problem sohing competency mean eating \ / Figure 4: Correlations significant at the p< 0.1 level ot higher Jy 2011 Project Management Journal 00! 10,1002/9m) 51Investigating the Impact of Project Managers’ Emotional Intelligence MSCEIT, wll show larger and more consis performance inthe business environment Name Proposition A The £0+i, when compared tothe tent correlations with individual and within the continental United States, 8 The £01, when compared tothe MSCEIT, will show larger and more consis ‘ent correlations with project manager performance in the continental United States, The £91, when compared tothe MSCEIT, wll show larger and more consis ‘ent correlation with project manager interpersonal competence in the United States, Not, €05 = Emotion stint vera, MSCEIT = MayerSalony Caro Eats nln Ter ‘Table 6 Propositions most directly apply to the field of proj- fect management, the role ofthe project ‘manager, the application of emotional intelligence tools, and the fields of organizational behavior and organiza- tional development. The overarching theme here was that the ability model (MSCEFT) and mixed model (EQ) had significant relationship, and the mixed model (EQ-i) and interpersonal competency ratings (PMICN had a sig- nificant relationship, but the ability model (MSCEIT) and interpersonal competency ratings of project man- agers (PMICD did not have a significant relationship. This finding suggests that the EQ-i may be a cluster of intermedi- ate or moderating factors related to oth cognitive emotional ability and interpersonal competence in the role of, project manager. Previous research has found that the relationship between cognitive appraisal and behavioral out- comes is fully mediated by coping and emotions (Fugate, Kinicki, & Prussia, 2008; Gooty, 2007), This study comple- ments these previous findings by plac- ing the EQ-i factors between MSCEIT ability model factors and interpersonal competency factors, One implication of this study is that the EQ-i warrants consideration in the project management community and especially those responsible for train- ing, developing, or allocating project managers. The results show that the 52 luy2011 Project Management Journal EQ has a consistent and significant relationship to interpersonal compe- tency ratings of project. managers (Table 3). Organizations that certify, test, or train project managers may benefit by incorporating EQ-i factors because scores with project managers have been found to have significant relationships to interpersonal compe- tency ratings important in this role, Project sponsors and project office leaders can use the EQ.i to gain insight into the strengths of their project man- agers and assign the right project manag- er based on the needs of the project. Pethaps problem solving will be critical because the deliverable is complex and ‘unknown. Pethaps conflict management «will be critical because the stakeholders, are known to have existing disagree- ments, It makes sense to consider a tool that shows a relationship to individuals who are highly competent in these A second implication of the study is the hiring and performance evaluations of project managers. nothing else, the self-report EQ-i provides a perspective with data gauging tendencies, prefer- ences, and self-image. Adaptability, re- siliency, and stress management: these are all measures of the EQui, and the data provides insight into these areas, Scores across each section of the EQ can complement a comprehensive toolset and create a data-driven baseline that assists in resource pool develop- ment, When organizations have a need {or high interpersonal competence in a given area (ie, motivation, conflict management), it makes sense to use tools as a resource to aid in hiring and development decisions (Figure 2) The third implication from this study is for scholars who wish to deep- cn the understanding of emotional intel- ligence models and the applicable value these corresponding tools have in the business setting The results indicate that these models have many similarities (Figure 3), The results also indicate that these modelshave many differences and strengths (Table 5). Direct comparison of the models and tools must be emphasized to advance theory devel- ‘opment and clarify the different busi- ness benefits ‘A final implication is for those that utilize emotional intelligence concepts either in their organization or when consulting for other organizations. This study clearly demonstrates that the EQ- i has more applicable value than the MSCEIT in the project manager role if high communication, motivation, problem solving, and conilict manage- ‘ment competence are desired, The EQ- i should be considered by organizations and consultants over the MSCEIT because socially dynamic environ- ments require comprehensive instru- ments that include the many variables influencing behavior (Figure 1), The case for the EQ-i appears strong for roles that require conflict management, motivation, and problem-solving com- petence, This does not mean the ability model lacks applicability in organiza- tions; it means that investment dollars appear to be more beneficial with these interpersonal domains ifthe EQ-‘is uti- lized (Figure 2) The findings from this study do have limitations. The samples were pri- marily from the midwestern United States, and the results should not be generalized for other countries. The results may not apply to all types of proj- fect managers or industries. No control‘was put in place to obtain representa- tive samples across industry or type category. Limited control measures ‘were available when selecting the rat ing group samples, and results may be different for certain kinds of project team members, certain stakeholders, or certain sponsorship roles. Summary This study explored the relationship between EI and interpersonal compe tency ratings for the role of project manager. The primary goal of the rescarch was to determine ifthe ability model of EI (Mayer et al, 2002), as measured by the MSCEIT, shows a sta Uistially significant relationship with interpersonal competency ratings that project managers receive from those they work with on projects. Two rela Uionships were found in the domains of conflict management and problem solving competences, but the overall exchange between interpersonal com: petence and the ability model of El, as measured by the MSCEIT, remained fairly marginal. The study utilized asec cond broader mixed model EI tool, the EQi developed by Dr. Bar-On (2000) uncovering stronger and moze consis Centzelationships with project manager interpersonal competency ratings. Findings support the use of the EQ-i mixed model interpretation because this measure has an emphasis on vati- ables tha influence behavior (Bar-On, 1996) and provided correlations to project manager interpersonal compe Cency ratings. The data suggest that the EQ-i mixed mode! interpretation of the El concept is useful in the project man- ager role. Future researchers are encouraged to use multiple measures of the El concept so they can continue (o be compared in the business en ronment. The EQ-i should also be examined for different job types. If we accept that successful projects need competent project managers, we must utilize and continue to explore intl: encing variables that show applicable relevance. References Anantatmula,V; (2008). The role of technology in the project manager per- formance model. Project Management Journal, 390), 34-48. ‘Antonakis, J. 2004). On why “emotion- al intelligence” will not predict leader- ship effectiveness. Organizational Analysis, 12, 71-182 ‘Adley S. (1984). Managerial and orga- nizational communication in terms of the conduit metaphor Academy of Management Review, 9, 428-437. Bachman, J, Stein, S., Campbell, K, & Sitarenios, G. 2000). Emotional intel gence in the collection of debt. International Journal of Selection and “Assessment, 8, 176-182. Bar-On,R. (1982). The development of 4 concept and test of psychological well- being: The construction ofthe emotional quotient inventory (the EQ). Un- published manuscript. Retrieved from Jhup:/wwewreuvenbaron.org/ bar-on- ‘model/essay phpti=10 Bar-On, R. (1996). The emotional quo- tient inventory:A measure f emotional intelligence. Toronto, Canada: Mult Tealth Systems. Bar-On, K. (1997). The emotional quo- tient inventory EQ.) Technical manu- al Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health systems. Bar-On,R. (2000). Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the emotional quotient inventory In R Bar-On & J. Pasker (Eds), The hand- book of emotional intelligence: Theor development, assessment, and applica- tion at home, school, and inthe work: place \sted,, pp. 363-388). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bar-On, R. (2004), Bar-On emotional quotient inventory: Technical manual. Toronto, ON, Canada: Multi-Health Systems. Bar-On, R. (2006). The Bar-On model of emotional-soval intelligence (ESI) Psicothema, 18, 13-25 Bar-On, R. (2008). Description ofthe EQ, EQ-860 and EQ-i:YV. Retrieved uy 2012 Project Management Journal from http://www.reuvenbaron.org/ bar-on-model Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and per- {formance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press, Bauer, M.,& Johnson-Laird, P (1993). How diagrams can improve reasoning, Psychological Science, 4, 372-378. Blake, R,, & Mouton, J. (1964). The ‘managerial grid: Key orientations for ‘achieving production through people, Houston, TX: Gulf Book, H. (2000). One big happy family. Ivey Business Journal, 6511), 44—A7. Brill}, Bishop, M., & Walker, A. (2006). The competencies and charac- teristics required of an effective project ‘manager. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 54, 115-140, Buck, R. (1981). The communication of emotion, New York: Guilford Press. Buck R, Savin, D, Miller, R.,& Caul, W. (1972). Nonverbal communication of affect in humans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 362-371. Busso, L, (2003). The relationship between emotional intelligence and contextual performance as influenced Dy job satisfaction and locus of control orientation (Unpublished doctoral dis- sertation). Alliant International University, San Diego, CA. Carbone, & Gholston, S. 2004). Project manager skill development: A survey of programs and practitioners. Engineering Management Journal, 1643), 10-16. Caruso, D. 2008). Defining the inkblot called emotional intelligence. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved from, hup://wwweiconsortium org Caruso, D., Mayer, J, & Salovey, P (2002), Emotional intelligence and emotional leadership. In R. E. Riggio, S.E. Murphy, & F J. Pirozzolo (Eds), ‘Muleiple intelligences and leadershipInvestigating the Impact of Project Managers’ Emotional Intelligence (pp. 55-74). Mahwah, Ni: Lawrence Exlbaum, Caruso, D., & Wolfe, C. (2002). Emotionally intelligent certification workshop. Workshop presented at the Pequot Mashantucket Museum, Stonington, CT, Cavallo, K, & Brienza, D, (2008) jational competence and leadership ‘excellence at Johnson & Johnson. Retrieved from hutp://www eiconsortium.org Chen, ¥,, Brockner,J.,& Greenberg, (2003). When is ita pleasure to do business with you? The effects of rela tive status, outcome favorability, and procedural fairness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 92, 1-21 Cherniss, C,, & Adler, M. (2008). Promoting emotional intelligence in “organizations. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and. Development. Chrusciel, D. (2006), Considerations of emotional intelligence (ED in dealing ‘with change decision management, ‘Management Decision, 44, 644-657. Giarrochi,J,, Deane, F, & Anderson, S. (2001). Emotional intelligence moder- ates the relationship between stress and emotional health, Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 197-208. Clayton, A. (1972). Existence, related- ness, and growth. New York: Free Press Conte, J. M. (2005). A review and eri- ‘que of emotional intelligence mea sures, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 433-440, Cooper, R.K,, & Sawaf, A. (1997). Executive EQ: Emotional intelligence in leadership and organizations. New York: Grosset/Putman, Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry ‘and research design: Choosing among {five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Damle, A. (2008). Influence of design tools on design problem solving (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) ‘The Ohio State University, Columbus. 154 suy2011 Project Mar ment Journal Daus,C., & Ashkanasy, N.M. (2005). The case for the ability based model of emotional intelligence in organization- al behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 453-466, Davis, S.A. (2008). The impact of emo- tional intelligence: An examination of, its relationship to interpersonal compe: tencies in the role of project manager (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Argosy University, Eagan, MN. Day, A-L., & Carroll, . 2004). Using an ability-based measure of emotional intelligence to predict individual per- formance, group performance, and group citizenship behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1443-1458. Day, D.V, Schleicher, D.J., Unckless, A.L., & Hiller, N.J. (2002). Self-moni- toring personality at work: A meta- analytic investigation of construct, validity: Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 390-401 Dinsmore, P (1999). Enterprise project ‘management. New York: AMACOM, DiVincenzo, T. 2006, Summer). Project managers stay in charge and out in front. Occupational Outlook Quarterly, pp. 18-25, Retrieved from bhup:/wwwbls gov opub/00q/2006/ summer/art03.pdf Dutta, $. (2000). Assessing the critical behavioral competencies of information technology (17) project managers at Southern California Edison (Un- published doctoral dissertation) University of Southern California, Los Angeles Eckman, P (1982). Emotion in the human face. New York: Cambridge University Press. Fox, S., & Spector, P.(2000). Relations of emotional intelligence, practical Intelligence, general intelligence, and ait affectivity with interview out- comes: Its not all just'G.’ Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 203-220. Frame, J. (1994). The new project man- agement: Corporate reengineering and other business realities, an Francisco, CA; Jossey-Bass, Freeland, E. (2007). A comparison of emotional intelligence and personality factors: Two concepts or one? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) University of Oklahoma, Norman, French, R. (2001). ‘Negative capability ‘managing the confusing uncertainties of change. Journal of Organizational ‘Change Management, 14, 480-491. Fugate, M, Kinicki, A, & Prussia, G. (2008). Employee coping with organi- zational change: An examination of alternative theoretical perspectives and models, Personnel Psychology 61(1), 1-36, Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, L, & Stough, C. (2002). Examining the relationship between leadership and emotional intelligence in senior level managers. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(2), 68-78, Gehring, D. (2007). Applying traits the- ory ofleadership to project manage- ment. Project Management Journal, 3811), 4-54 George, J. & Jones, G. (2008) Understanding and managing organi- zational behavior (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Gibbs, N. (1995). The EQ factor Time reports: Understanding psychology. Retrieved from hrtp://www.time.com/ tme/classroom/psych/unitS_articlel Gillard, ., & Price, J. (2005). The com- petencies of effective project man- agers: A conceptual analysis. International journal of Management, 2211), 48-53, Gilley, .,Eggland, S., & Gilley A. (2002). Principles of human resource development 2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing. Goleman, D. (1995), Emotional intelli gence: Why it can matter more than IQ, ‘New York: Bantam Books. Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York Bantam Books,Goleman, D. (1998b). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, 766), 92-102, Goleman, D. (2001). An Ei-based theo- ry of performance. In C. Cherniss & D, Goleman (Eds.), The emotionally intl ligent workplace (pp. 27-44). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R,, & MeKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Gooty, J. (2007). Development and test of a model linking emotions and work behaviors (Unpublished doctoral dis- sertation). Oklahoma State University, Stillwater. Gowing, M. (2001). Measurement of individual emotional competence. In C. Cherniss & D. Goleman (Eds), The emotionally intelligent workplace (pp. 83-131). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hay Group. (1999). What makes great leaders: Rethinking the route to effec- tive leadership. Findings from Fortune ‘Magazine/Hay Group 1989 Executive Survey of Leadership Effectiveness. Retrieved from hitp://wwweatalyst 4change.com/file/ Resources files! E1%320What%20Makes%20Great% 2oLeaders pdf Hemphill, JK. (1958). Job descriptions for executives. Harvard Business Review, 37(5), 55-67. Henderson, L. (2008). The impact of project managers’ communication competencies: Validation and exten- sion of a research model for virtuality, satisfaction and productivity on proj- fect teams. Project Management Journal, 39(2), 48-59 Herkenhoff, L. 2004), Culturally tuned emotional intelligence: An effective change management tool? Strategic Change, 13(2), 73-81, Herzberg, E, Mausner, B, & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: Wiley. Hoffman, B., & Frost, B. (2006). Multiple intelligences of wansformational leaders: ‘An empirical examination. International Journal of Manpower, 270), 37-51 Humphrey, N., Curran, A, Morsis,F,& ‘Woods, K (2006). Emotional intli- gence and education: A critical review: Educational Psychology, 27, 235-254 Huy, Q. (1998). Emotional capability emotional intelligence, and radical change. Academy of Management Review, 24, 325-344, TBM. (2008). Making change work Retieved from htp://wwws-835 ‘ibm.com/services/us/gbs/bus International Project Management Association. (2006). International Project Management Association com: petency baseline version 3.0. Nikerk, The Netherlands: IPMA Editorial Committee. Janis, 1, & Mann, L. (1977). Decision ‘making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice and commitment. New York: The Free Press Jordan, P (2000). Measuring emotional intelligence in the workplace: com pavison of self and peer ratings of emo: tonal intelligence. Paper presented at ‘Academy of Management 60th Annual “Meeting, Toronto, Canada Kelly, G. (1955). The psychology of pr- sonal constructs. New York: Norton. Kendra, K, Taplin (2004), Project suecess:A cultural framework Project Management fournal, 5(1), 30-45 Kerr, R., Garvin, J., Heaton, N.,&Boyle, E2006). Emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27, 265-278, Kerzner, H. 2001). Applied project ‘management: Best practices on imple ‘mentation. New York: Wiley Knoblich, G, & Ohlsson, S. (1999). Constraint relaxation and chunk decomposition in insight problem solving. Journal of Experimental Peychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1584-1558. Leban,W. 2003). The relationship between leader behavior and emotional uy 2012 Project Management Journal intelligence ofthe project manager and the success of complex projects (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) Benedictine University, Lisle, IL Leslie, J, &Van Velsor, B. (1996). A look at derailment today: North America and Europe, Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. Lopes, P. 2004). Emotional abilities and the quality of interpersonal inter action (Unpublished doctoral disserta- tion). Yale University, New Haven, CT, Lopes, P, Cote, S., & Salovey,P. (2006). An ability model of emotional intelli- gence: Implications for assessment and training, In. U, Druskat, Sala, & G. Mount (Eds), Linking emotional intelligence and performance at work: Current research evidence with individ- uuals and groups (Ist ed., pp. 53-80). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Lopes, RN, Salovey P, & Straus, R (2003). Emotional intelligence, person- ality, andthe perceived quality of social relationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 641-858 Lundberg, C, & Young, C. (2001). A note on emotions and consultancy Journal of Organizational Change Management, 14, 530-538. Lusch, R,& Serpkeuci, R. (1990). Individual differences in output vari- ability asa function of job complexity Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 2-42 Luskin, E, Aberman,R, &DeLorenz0, A. (2008). The training of emotional competence in nancial ervices advi- sors, Retrieved from htp://wrsweicon sorcium org Malek, M. 2000), Relationship betwen ‘emotional intelligence and collaborative ‘conflict resolution styles Unpublished doctoral dissertation) United States International University San Diogo, CA Mataler K, Bailom, F, & Mooradian,T. (2007). Intuitive decision making. MIT Sloan Management Review, 41), 15-15 Mayer, J 2001). field guide to em tional intelligence. Tn J. Ciaztochi, J.P oe 108002/pm) 55Investigating the Impact of Project Managers’ Emotional Intelligence Forgas, & J.D. Mayer (Eds), Emotional intelligence in everyday life:A scientific inquiry (pp. 3-24). Philadelphia, PA: Peyehology Press, Mayer, J, & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional develop- ‘ment and emotional intelligence: Bducational implications (pp. 3-31). New York: Basic Books. Mayer, J, & Salovey, P. (2004). What is emotional intelligence? In P Salovey, M.A. Brackett, & JD. Mayer (Eds), Emotional intelligence: Key readings on the Mayer and Salovey model (pp. 26-80). Port Chester, NY: Dude Publishing. Mayer, J, Salovey, P, & Caruso, D. (2000). Models of emotional intelli- gence, In R, J. Sternberg (Fd), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 396-420), New York: Cambridge University Press, Mayer, J, Salovey, P, & Caruso, D. (2002). Mayer-Salovey.Caruso emo- tional intelligence test (MSCEIT) users ‘manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi Health Systems. Mayer, J, Salovey, P, & Caruso, D. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Theory, findings, and implications Psychological Inquiry, 15, 197-218. McClave, J, Benson, P, & Sincich,T. (2005). Statisties for business and eco- nomics (Sth ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall. McClelland, D. (1999). Identifying competencies with behavioral-event interviews. Psychological Science, 8, 331-339, Mesquita, B. (2001). Culture and emo- tion: Different approaches to the ques- tion. InT.J. Mayne & G. A Bonanno (Eds), Emotions: Currrent issues and {future directions (pp. 214-250). New York: Guilford Press. “Messmer, M. (1999). Skills for a new millennium. Strategic Finance, 812), 102 Milivojevich, A. (2006). Emotional intelligence and six-sigma. Quality Progress, 39(8), 45-49. 56 uy2011 Project Management Journal Mintzberg, I. (1989). Minizberg on ‘management: Inside our strange world of organizations. New York: The Free Press. Moorhead, G., & Griffin, R.W. (2001). Organizational behavior: Managing people and organizations (6th ed.) Boston: Houghton Mifflin, Muchinsky, P M. (2000). Psychology applied to work (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: ‘Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Newsome, S., Day, A. & Catano,V. (2000). Assessing the predictive validity of emo- sional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 1005-1016. Parsells, R. 2006). Change and learn: ing in the workplace: A perspective {formed through the conceptual frame- works ofan adult ransition theory and «an adult learning theory (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas State University, San Marcos, Payne, H. (2003). Revisiting a nebulous construct: Exploring the impact of rela- tional communication competence on job performance (Unpublished doctor- al dissertation). University of Kentucky, Lexington, Pettersen, N. (1991). Selecting project ‘managers: An integrated list of predic- tors. Project Management Journal, 22(4), 21-26, Pfeffer, J. (1998). The human equation Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Phillips, A. (2008). An interactional dis: course analysis of strategies used by engineering students during problem solving activities (Unpublished doctor- al dissertation). University of Memphis, Memphis, TN. Philips, ., Bothell, T, & Snead, G. (2002). The Project management score- card: Measuring the success of project ‘management solutions, Boston: Butterworth Heinemann, Pilling, K, & Eroglu, S.(1994). An empizical examination of the impact of salesperson empathy and professional- ism and merchandise salability on, retall buyer's evaluations. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 14(1), 45-88. Pinto, J, & Kharbanda, 0. (1995). Project management and conflict reso. lution, Project Management Journal, 2618), 45-54. Pinto, J. & Kharbanda, 0. (1996). How to fail in project management (without really trying). Business Horizons, 29(), 45-53. Polito, B. (2007). Organizational climate change via emotional intelligence skill set development (EISSD) (Unpublished. doctoral dissertation). Alliant Intemna- tional University, San Diego, CA. Pondy,L. (1967). Organizational con- {ict: Concepts and models. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2, 296-320, Porter, L., & Lawler, EI. (1968). ‘Managerial attitudes. Homewood, IL: Irwin-Dorsey Series in Behavioral Science. Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York, NY Free Press Posner, B. (1987). What it takes to be a good project manager. Project ‘Management Journal, 28(1), 51-54 Project Management Institute, (2007). Project management competency devel: opment framework (2nd ed.). Newtown Square, PA: Author, Project Management Institute. (2008). A guide fo the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide, 4th ced.). Newtown Square, PA: Author Project Management Institute, (2011), About us and membership figures. Retrieved from hetp://www.pmi.org JAbout-Us/About-Us-What-is-PMLaspx Rahim, M,, & Bonoma,T. (1979). ‘Managing organizational conflict: A ‘model for diagnosis and intervention, Psychological Reports, 44, 1323-1344, Reich, B.H., & Wee. S.¥. (2006). Searching for knowledge in the PMBOK Guide. Project Management Journal, 372), 11-26. Reich, R. (1991). The work of nations: Preparing ourselves for 21st century capitalism, New York: Knopf.Roberts, R,, Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. 2001). Does emotional intelligence ‘meet traditional standards for an intel- ligence? Some new data and conclu- sions. Emotion, 1, 196-231 Rode, J.C., Mooney, C.H., Arthaud- Day, M.L., Near, J.P, Baldwin, T.T., Rubin, R.S., & Bommer, W.H. (2007) Emotional intelligence and individual performance: Evidence of direct and moderating effects. Journal of, Organizational Behavior, 28, 398-421 Rosenthal, R. (1977). The PONS test: Measuring sensitivity to nonverbal cues. In P McReynolds (Ed.}, Advances in psychological assessment (pp. 5-16) San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Rossen, E. (2007). The validity of emo- tional intelligence and its ability to pre- dict important outcomes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Florida, Gainesville Sala, F 2008). It's lonely atthe top: ‘ecutives' emotional intelligence self (imis)perceptions, Retrieved from hutp://wwweiconsortium.org Salovey, P, Brackett, M.A. & Mayer, J.D. (2008). Emotional intelligence: Key readings on the Mayer and Salovey ‘model. New York: Dude Publishing Salovey, P, & Mayer, J. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185-211, Schmid, B, & Adams, J. (2008). Motivation in project management; The project managers perspective. Project ‘Management Journal, 32), 60-71 Seligman, M. (1990). Learned opti ‘ism, New York: Knopf. Shenhar, A. (2001). One size does not fit all projects: Exploring classical con- tingency domains. Journal of the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Science, 47, 394414 Singh, 8. 2007). Role of emotional intelligence in organizational learning ‘An empirical study. Singapore ‘Management Review, 2312), 55-74 Spencer, I., MeClelland, D., & Kelner, 8. (1997). Competency assessment ‘methods: History and the state of the art. Boston, MA: HayMeBer. Spencer, L., & Spencer, S. (1993). Competence at work: Models for superi or performance. New York: Wiley. Spurlock, R. (2000). The importance of communication skills: Perceptions of IS professionals, IS managers, and users (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, Stephens, B. (2007). A phenomenologi- cal study: Human resource professional perceptions of leader emotional intelli- ‘gence and employee affective commit- ‘ment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Phoenix Sternberg, R.J. (1985). Beyond IQ: triarchie theory of human intelligence. ‘New York: Cambridge University Press Sternberg, R.J.,& Ben-Zeev, T. (2001), Complex cognition: The psychology of human thought, New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Suchan, J., & Dulek, R. (1998). From text to context: An open systems approach to research in written busi ness communications. Journal of Business Communication, 35, 87 10. Sy.T, & Cote, S. (2004), Emotional intel- ligence: A key ability o sueceed in the matrix organization. Journal of ‘Management Development, 23, 437-155. ‘Thomas, K. (1976). Conflict and con- ‘ict management, In M, Dunnette ), Handbook of industrial and orga nizational psychology (pp. 888-935). Chicago: Rand MeNally ‘Thorndike, E. (1920). Intelligence and its ‘uses, Harper’ Magazine, 140, 227-235. ‘Trochim, W. (2008), Research methods The concise knowledge base. Mason, OH: Thomson. ‘Tubbs, S., & Moss, S. (1894). Human communications (7th ed.). New York, NY: MeGraw-Hill. ‘Tucker, M.L, Sojka, J.Z,, Barone, ‘McCarthy, A.M. (2000). Training ‘tomorrow’ leaders: Enhancing the emotional intelligence of business graduates. Journal of Education for Business, 75, 31-338, 1 uy 2012 Project Management Journal Turner, R,, & Lloyd-Walker, B. 2008) Emotional intelligence (EI) capabilites training: Can it develop Elin project teams? international journal of Managing Projects in Business, 1, 512-534, ‘Van Rooy, D, & Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotional intelligence: A meta-analyt- ic investigation of predictive validity and nomological net. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65,71-95, Walton, R. (1987). Managing conflict: Interpersonal dialogue and third-party roles 2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley. ‘Wechsler, D. (1939). The measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins. Wedeck, J. (1947). The relationship between personality and psychological ability. British Journal of Psychology, 36, 133-151 ‘World Bank. (2005). Litle data book (The World Bank Data Group ed.) ‘Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Yatim, B, Bredillet,C., & Ruiz, P.(2009) Investigating the deployment of project, management: A new perspective based fn the concept of certification, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2, 445-15 Young, P.(2004). Leadership and gen. der in higher education: A case study. Journal of Purther and Higher Education, 28, 95-106, Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Science ‘and myth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Zhang, J.,& Norman, D. (1994). Representations in distributed cogni- tive tasks. Cognitive Science, 18, 87-122. Steven A Davis anajunct professor of esearch methods and organizational assessment at Ader Graduote Seheelin Reh Minnesota, USA He hold Bain financial economies fem Gustavus dois Clee, an MA fom The College f Saint Sehoastia, and DBA fem Argosy Unversty He Is CE0 of ndueve Consulting LC and works 3 3 process consuant for Well Fargo cCempang, in dition to teaching Inquiries canbe directed drdvis9@gmalcom, oe 108002/em) 57