Running head: INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 1
Integrative Project
Jeremy D. Passer
Capella University
A Paper Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements of
PSY5201 – Integrative Project for Master's Degree in Psychology
Spring, 2011
Crystal, MN 55427
Email: [email protected]
Instructor: Carolyn King, PhD.
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 2
Abstract
The use of emotional intelligence (EI) in the field of Industrial and Organizational Psychology
has many supporters and detractors. On one hand are peer-reviewed articles that find EI useful
in practice, while on the other hand many of those same articles often described one or more
models and assessments of EI to be invalid and/or unreliable. Practitioners who are new to EI
and want to incorporate its use in their practice need help to determine which models and
assessments of EI are most useful. By adding process consultation and outcome-based
consulting to the decision making process of selecting the best fit EI model and EI assessment,
practitioners can add value to their clients by having a focus on their outcomes. Reflection on
the professional knowledge and skills finalize the discussion of how I-O practitioners can most
effectively use EI and EI assessments.
Keywords: emotional intelligence, practitioner, process consultation, outcome-based consulting
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Description of Emotional Intelligence in I-O Psychology………….................. 4
Why Significant to I-O Psychology?.................................................................. 5
Literature Review……………………………………………………………… 5
Genesis of EI…………………………………………………………............... 6
Current Models………………………………………………………………… 6
MSCEIT 2.0…………………………………………………………............... 7
EQ-i, EQ-i 2.0. ………………………………………………………… 8
ECI 2.0…………………………………………………………………. 9
Usability………………………………………………………………............... 10
Best Practices and Standards…………………………………………............... 13
Psychometrics…………………………………………………………... 13
Where are the practitioners’ voices?........................................................ 14
Adding Value to the Field……………………………………………................ 15
Application…………………………………………………………………….. 17
Introduction to the Application………………………………………………… 17
Other Options to Apply EI?................................................................................. 18
Consulting psychology can help……………………………………….. 18
Purpose of the Application…………………………………………………….. 19
Description and Elements of the Application………………………………….. 20
Process Consultation…………………………………………………… 20
Outcome Based Consultation…………………………………………... 21
Using the Applications..………………………………………………………... 22
Target Population………………………………………………………………. 23
Potential Contributions of the Application to Area of Specialization …………. 23
Implementation of the Specific Application ……………………….………….. 24
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 4
Evaluation of Application……………………………………………………… 24
Kirkpatrick’s Evaluation Model……………………………………………….. 25
Reaction and Learning…………………………………………………. 25
Behavior and Results…………………………………………............... 26
Reflecting on Professional Knowledge and Skill………………………………. 26
Information, Skills, and Professional Attributes……………………….............. 26
Theoretical Orientation………………………………………………………… 28
Characteristics of the Culturally Skilled Practitioner………………………….. 30
Multiculturalism………………………………………………............... 30
Reflecting on Personal Beliefs and Values…………………………………….. 31
Facing Ethical Dilemmas………………………………………………………. 32
Strengths of Professional Competencies……………………………………….. 33
References……………………………………………………………………… 35
Description of Emotional Intelligence in I-O Psychology
Industrial and Organizational Psychology is the science of human behaviors in the
workplace. The construct of emotional intelligence (EI) and EI assessments are tools that
provide I-O psychologist’s both professional and career opportunities by helping organizations,
groups, and individuals meet and exceed their goals. Applications of EI have become important
for organization in helping them to predict leadership behavior and improve organizational
performance (Stein, Papadogiannis, Yip, & Sitarenios, 2008). Opportunities to use EI have even
been developed for enhancing athletic performance in sport athletes, while also being important
to the health considerations of those athletes and other individuals (Meyer & Fletcher, 2007;
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 5
Perlini & Halverson, 2006). The flow of EI into organization and industry is significant because
it has, or at least has been an attempt to; implement a different psychological construct other than
personality and cognitive abilities for enhancing performance, while also being able to shown
evidence of incremental validity over those traditional I-O assessments (Joseph & Newman,
2010).
Determining if there is a demand for EI and EI assessment in the marketplace can be
ascertained by queries of internet search engines, searches of professional peer-reviewed
journals, and government references. Type in the keywords, “emotional intelligence consultant”
in any internet search engine and you will notice that there are pages and pages of results. One
organization’s website claims it has clients for their EI consulting practice with the likes of
Hewlett Packard, Home Depot, ING, and many other prominent companies (The InnerWork Co,
2009). While MHS, the company that publishes the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i and
now the newer version EQ-i 2.0) assessment states in many of its marketing materials that their
client list includes the US Air Force, the Center for Creative Leadership, and American Express
as organizations that have used and seen a return of their investments when utilizing EI
assessments for various purposes (2009). A visit to the government database of O*Net or the
Department of Labor’s website also confirms that the work of I-O psychologists, irrespective of
EI, will experience high demand for their services over the next 10 years (O*Net Online, 2010).
These data points show that I-O psychologists who plan on using EI and EI assessments have
clearly found their niche in the marketplace for individuals, groups, and organizations.
Why Significant to I-O Psychology?
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 6
One of the most important ways I-O psychologists can differentiate themselves in the
marketplace from traditional business consultants or other competitors is their education in the
scientific method of hypothesis testing, data collection, analysis, and reporting. In addition, I-O
psychology training requires an in-depth ability to conduct research using peer-reviewed articles,
which are either qualitatively or quantitatively measured, requiring a strong understand of
statistics and research methods; something not typically associated with a business background
in accounting or HR. These skills are in addition to the training I-O psychologists have in social
psychology, lifespan development, psychology of consulting, learning theories, and general
knowledge of the history of psychology as a science dating back to at least as early as the Greek
Philosophers, until its separation from philosophy in the 1800’s, to today, where the study of
psychology is a well know and respected science by most. Lastly, the requirement to purchase,
score, administer, and provide feedback of assessments typically requires Master’s level courses
in statistics, research methods, and assessments and measurement in the workplace. Next will be
an opportunity to review just some of the current and past literature on EI and EI assessment.
Literature Review
Genesis of EI
While the common public perception of EI is that it originated in 1995 with Goleman
when he published his book, Emotional Intelligence; the psychological inquiry into social and
emotional competencies dates back much earlier. In fact it was Charles Darwin’s exploration
into The Expression of the Emotions in Man and in Animals (1872/1965) which first provided
evidence that emotions are important to survival in humans (Bar-On, 2006). Thorndike’s (1920)
research on intelligence, Doll’s (1935) examination of social maturity, and Wechsler’s (1958)
research on general intelligence are frequently cited by current researchers of EI as important to
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 7
the understanding and construct applicability of EI as it is known today (Bar-On, 2006; Joesph
& Newman, 2010; Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Cronbach’s 1960 statement that “social
intelligence remains undefined and unmeasured” (p. 319) may have deterred some from defining
and measuring non-cognitive abilities, but Applebaum (1973) continued to dig into this arena by
building a model of psychological mindedness, while Lane & Schwartz (1987) researched
emotional awareness in relation to cognitive development (Bar-On, 2006). There have been
others of course not mentioned, but the purpose here is not a historical perspective of EI, but
readers of this paper should have knowledge of those who were important to getting EI to where
it is today. The most current popular models of EI and their related EI assessments will be
examined next.
Current Models
The Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations (2010) lists ten
unique assessments currently available to measure EI and emotional-social intelligence (ESI).
However, most peer-reviewed articles on EI and ESI point to three (sometimes four)
models/assessments that are currently most widely accepted and used (Bar-On, 2006; Cherniss,
2010; Joseph & Newman, 2010; Salovey, Mayer, Caruso, & Lopes, 2003; Sharma, Biswal,
Deller, & Marndal, 2009). These models and corresponding assessments are: The Bar-On
model of social and emotional intelligence as measured by the EQ-i (now EQ-i 2.0), the Salovey-
Mayer ability model as measured by the Mayer-Salovey-Carouso Emotional Intelligence Test, or
MSCEIT, the Goleman model, measured by the Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI), and
Trait Emotional Intelligence as measured by the TEIQue (Cherniss, 2010). This paper will only
be looking at the three mostly widely used models and assessments, the EQ-i, MSCEIT, and the
ECI.
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 8
MSCEIT
The MSCEIT is an “ability” measure of emotional intelligence (Salovey et al, 2003). The
authors of the MSCEIT define EI as,
the ability to access and generate felling to facilitate cognitive activities; the ability to
understand affect-laden information and use emotionally relevant knowledge; and the
ability to manage one’s own emotions and the emotions of others to promote emotional
and intellectual growth, well-being, and adaptive social relations (Salovey et al, 2003, p.
251-252).
Key to this ability model is the measurement of EI as something that is either right or wrong
when scoring results of the assessment. How can you have a correct answer on an ability
measure of EI? The MSCEIT uses three reference points to determine correct answers.
Consensus scoring based on if answers match the majority of a normative sample group
response, expert scoring which compares answer to those of experts who also answered the
question(s), and target-based scoring where the answers have been confirmed (for example, if
trying to determine the emotion of someone in a photograph, the person in the photograph was
asked how they felt) (Salovey et al, 2003). The model is based on four main constructs of EI;
perceiving emotion in oneself and others, using emotions to facilitate through, understanding
emotion, and managing emotion (Salovey et al, 2003). The 141-item response MSCEIT has
been analyzed for reliability and validity using scoring results from general and expert correct
answers. Reliability measurement was examined at the full-test level, four-branch level, and
individual-subtest levels with α’s ranging between .62 at the subtest level of “Blends” under
expert scoring, and α .93 for total MSCEIT using expert scoring (Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, &
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 9
Sitartenios, 2003). Factor analysis showed that it is indeed EI, and not personality or another
construct that was being represented by the MSCEIT model (Mayer et al, 2003).
EQ-i/EQ-i 2.0.
Reuven Bar-On developed the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i), a self-reported
measure of emotional-social intelligence (ESI). Unlike the MSCEIT which purports to measure
only EI, the EQ-i model examines ESI. Also, unlike the MSCEIT where answers are either right
or wrong; the EQ-i is scored on a five point Likert-like scale. Bar-On claims in 1988 he created
the term “emotional quotient” while working on his Ph.D., and did so thinking that the
knowledge and understanding of ESI would lead to psychological well-being (Bar-On, 2006).
Bar-On defines EI as; “emotional-social intelligence is a cross-section of interrelated emotional
and social competencies, skills, and facilitators that determine how effectively we understand
and express ourselves, understand others and relate with them, and cope with daily demands”
(2006, p.14). The newest model, EQ-i 2.0 includes a total EI score, five group composites, three
sub-groups for each of the five main groups, and an overall measurement of happiness (MHS,
2011). The composite group and sub-scales are as follows: self-perception (self-regard, self-
actualization, emotional self-awareness), self-expression (emotional expression, assertiveness,
independence), interpersonal (interpersonal relationships, empathy, social responsibility),
decision making (problem solving, reality testing, impulse control), and stress management
(flexibility, stress tolerance, optimism) (MHS, 2011). While the current psychometric properties
of the EQ-i 2.0 are not yet available from their technical guide, one can assume they only
improve the reliability and validity of the EQ-i. In the original EQ-i, internal consistency
was .97, and factor analysis was comparable with the MSCEIT and ECI (Bar-On, 2006). The
EQ-i’s divergent construct validity was also statistically significant from cognitive intelligence
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 10
and personality (Bar-On, 2006). Bar-On states one of best features of the EQ-i assessment and
his model of ESI is that it is teachable and learnable (Bar-On, 2006).
ECI 2.0.
The ECI 2.0 assessment parallels with Goleman and Boyatzis model of EI. The ECI
technical manual defines EI as:
Emotional intelligence is the capacity for recognizing our own feelings and those of
others, for motivating ourselves and for managing emotions effectively in ourselves and
others. An emotional competence is a learned capacity based on emotional intelligence
that contributes to effective performance at work (Hay Group, 2005, p. 10).
A self-assessment with an option to be used as a multi-rater 360-degree view, the ECI’s main -
groupings and each main cluster sub-groups are: self-awareness (emotional awareness, accurate
self-assessment, self-confidence), self-management (emotional self-control, transparency,
adaptability, achievement, initiative, optimism), social awareness (empathy, organizational
awareness, service orientation), and relationship management (developing others, inspirational
leadership, change catalyst, influence, conflict management, teamwork & collaboration) (Hays
Group, 2005). Average internal consistency of the ECI model was α .63, while test-retest
reliabilities were not compiled (Hays Group, 2005). Construct validity studies indicated that the
ECI measures something different than personality assessments, while there was also strong
empirical evidence that the ECI does have a relationship to career success and student
performance (Hays Group, 2005).
As has been described now the three most commonly used and accept models of EI or
ESI are each tying to describe how non-cognitive abilities interact with people and their lives.
Perhaps surprisingly and depending on one’s previous knowledge of EI, it may be most
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 11
interesting to have seen that each assessment measures different variables and groupings, and
each model’s definition of EI/ESI are different. Yet perhaps this should not be a surprise
considering that psychologist still lack a consensus in defining general intelligence (Cherniss,
2010). Now that the three main models have been describe in general details, next are some of
the current applications of EI and EI assessments as found in peer-reviewed literature.
Usability
Each assessments creator(s) have lists of applications relevant to their assessments. Some
of the significantly correlations they say (peer reviewed documents were used to validate their
statements) exist to EI/ESI are with psychical health, psychological health, social interaction,
performance at school, performance in the workplace, self-actualization, well-being, and
substance abuse in teenagers (Bar-On, 2006; Salovey et al., 2003). Other literature is also
abundant EI/ESI applications and below are a few application that are available through a
comprehensive literature review of the subject.
A research study on hockey players in the National Hockey League (NHL) found they
have higher intrapersonal, stress management, and stress tolerance than the general population;
while their mood and intrapersonal competencies provided incremental validity on predicting the
success of a player’s career in the NHL (Perlini & Halverson, 2006). An I-O psychologist and
Organizational Development (OD) practitioner (Blattner & Bacigalupo, 2007) looked at how EI
might help executive leadership coaching and organizational development. They reported
through a qualitative case study how EI can be used to enhance team effectiveness and jump start
organizations that have become stagnant. To engage their clients’, the author’s had executives
and other leaders take an EI assessment. Although they did not specifically say they used
Goleman’s model and the ECI, they cited his cluster EI skills when discussion EI. Using a
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 12
process consultation (PC) model with their clients they were able to lead a 12-hour retreat that
exposed clients to the model of EI and how it could help them function more effectively. Many
breakthroughs occurred during the training, including building a consensus on how to make
decision for the organization and connecting thinking and feeling to enhance communication
between the organizations employees. Lastly, the client provided feedback to give a full 360
degree picture of the EI intervention and helped accentuate the findings that EI can add value to
organizations.
Leary, Reilly, and Brown (2009) examined if there were any correlations between the
EQ-i and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) in hopes of finding applications of using the
EQ-i model to help develop a deeper understanding of personal communication preferences for
groups and individuals within organizations. They found persons with a preference for
extraversion had higher overall EQ-i, intrapersonal, interpersonal, adaptability, and general mood
scales, while introversion was negatively related to stress management, and feeling positive was
associated to higher interpersonal skills (Leary et al., 2009). In the final discussion, the author’s
found their results to be important because if extroversion and feeling preferences are most
related to EI, and if EI contributes to organizational goal attainment, then more attention ought to
be paid to those variables when trying to improve organizational effectiveness and goal
achievement.
Dries and Pepermans (2007) used the EQ-i as a proxy to help identify high potential
leaders. They made several hypotheses about the correlation of EI to job performance, career
commitment, and high potential status of future leaders. They made an interesting point that
organizations using “talent detection” competencies that look to past performance as their
baseline are ignoring that future challenges will not necessarily have the same factors or
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 13
competencies on which the leader of the past successfully relied upon. Dries and Pepermans
(2007) found EQ-i subscales of assertiveness, independence, optimism, flexibility, and social
responsibility are “covert” (p. 761) indicators of picking out high performance from the average
or low performance leader. Other conclusion were that using the EQ-i assessment could help
organization build their pipeline of leadership through the identification of high potential, not
just high performance employees.
Another confirmed research hypothesis looked into leadership and EI and confirmed that
EI has become an import consideration for organization by helping them to predict leadership
behavior, and improve organizational performance (Stein, Papadogiannis, Yip, & Sitarenios, G.,
2009). Stein et al. (2009) also concluded that EI as measured by the EQ-i was able differentiate
top-executives from lower performers and that empathy was higher in executive with higher
profits in their organization.
Not all research does support that EI can be developed in individuals. In 2009, research
found no improvement of EI scores (EQ-i) when using an executive leadership development
program (Muyia & Kacirek,2009). But, the design of the program did not actual examine if EI is
teachable using the Bar-On model, rather it simply pointed out the specific training program did
nothing to improve EI in participants. Leaving the possibility open that if other articles finding a
lack of value in EI for business are found to show EI is a weak in predicting business
performance; it might not be that case EI is not valid since it is not the dependent variable!
While lastly, a recent study (Sharma, Deller, Biswal, and Mandal, 2009) concluded EI constructs
can have different values in different cultures. Not exactly a surprising finding, however it is
important to know the limitation of EI when used cross-culturally. Now having gone over some
of the basic applications of EI and ESI and knowing that there are hundreds of other studies on
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 14
EI and ESI, how can anyone know what to look for to determine if the findings reported are
accurate, believable, and have been assessed using the best practice of I-O psychology?
Best Practices and Standards
Psychometrics.
The adherence to and use of the scientific method in I-O psychology is what helps to lend
it credibility in the marketplace and academia. Two important and best practices I-O
psychologists use to meet scientific standards are making sure psychological constructs like EI
and ESI, and assessments like the EQ-i, MSCEIT, and ECI are valid and reliable. Validity is the
correlation of test results in relation to the trait it seeks to measure (Kaplan and Saccuzzo 2009).
Validity is considered by some experts of test and measurement to be the prime objective in
developing and evaluating test (AERA, APA, NCME, 1999). There are four basic validity types:
Face validity, content-related, criterion, and construct related evidence (Kaplan & Saccuzzo,
2009). While validity deals with accuracy, reliability is about consistency. Reliability can also
be described as the magnitude of miscalculation in any assessment (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2009).
In addition to reliability and validity, other standards and guideline exist and can help
practitioners make the right decision when working with EI and ESI.
For psychologist in the United States the most important guidelines for ethical conduct
were created by the American Psychological Association (APA). These guidelines can be found
on their website and cover ten different ethical standards ranging from therapy, to advertising
and other public statements, and assessments (APA, 2010). The APA ethical principles are a
detailed description of the ethical and moral principles expected and required of scholars,
scientists, and practitioners of psychology. Those who are not in alliance with this code could be
censured or expelled from the association; losing important credentials often necessary to legally
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 15
practice as a psychologist (per individual States laws). Of particular importance for this paper
are the groups of principles under Standard 9: Assessments (APA, 2010).
An even more comprehensive set of guidelines and Standards for educational and
psychologist testing was drafted by the APA, American Educational Research Association
(AERA), and the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME) that examines test
construction, evaluation, documentation, fairness in testing, and testing application (1999). The
Standards text provides the basic and advanced ethical and moral principles associated with
testing and assessments. These Standards are helpful in explaining the more important codes of
conduct and responsibilities of using assessments.
Where are the practitioners’ voices?
Cascio and Aguinis (2008) completed a comprehensive review of over 5,700 articles
published in respected I-O journals from 1963 to 2007 to uncover the research trends in I-O
psychology over the past 45 years. Their results uncovered many trends about methodology-
psychometrics issues, predictors of performance, work motivation and attitudes, performance
measurement, work outcomes, leader influences, and human factors of applied experimental
psychology. Specifically related to this paper was their discussion of a falling out of sorts
between I-O scientists and non-academic I-O psychologists (practitioners) authors; and with that
concerns that I-O psychology scientists may fail to provide external validity to their research and
unfortunately limit the influence they have over HRM practitioners, managers, stakeholders, and
policy makers who are most likely to benefit for such research. This falling off of research on
critical issue in I-O psychology between the academic (scientist) side and the practitioner side of
I-O psychology is vividly visible in the science published on EI and ESI. One scientist can argue
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 16
against a certain construct if their research shows the validity and reliability are weak, but when
the other side of the argument has science that show the construct and assessments are valid and
reliable as well, what and whom do practitioners in the margins trust and use to implement EI
into their practices?
Adding Value to the Field
Two simple ideas of how to apply EI and ESI when unsure of which definition or
assessment is the “right” one is to not limit oneself to one theoretical preference for a particular
EI assessment, and keeping an open mind about which assessment to use and when. But is it that
simple? Next are brief synopses of two recent articles that provide a glimpse of the struggles
within the I-O community on using EI and ESI.
Two Professors at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign were looking for a new
model of EI that could be used by personnel psychologist in making staffing decisions (Joseph &
Newman, 2010). They wrote that current EI models are redundant with personality and
cognitive measure, which have more reliable and valid predictor criterion (Joseph & Newman,
2010). The Bar-On model of ESI is dismissed for its mixed model and is called a grab-bag of
variables that are anything not related to cognitive ability, while the MSCEIT is knocked down a
peg by pointing out that is only measures perception of emotion in others, not self. While they
felt ability-based EI (MSCEIT) models are better than mixed-models; they point out they have
limited criterion validity because of sex and race based sub-group differences. Lastly, they
recommend that if practitioners are going to use EI assessments that extreme caution be used
since ability models are hit or miss in their capacity to predict future job success, and that while
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 17
mixed-models are better generalized predictors; they lack more clearly cut theoretical structure
which include too many parts of cognitive, social, and personality psychology.
Another recent focal article trying to provide some guidance on to both scientist and
practitioners on EI was written by Cary Cherniss, PhD., Professor at Rutgers University. He
wrote the focal article for the Industrial and Organizational Psychologist publication
Perspectives on Science and Practice in aspirations of trying to find a common concept of EI.
Cherniss (2010) discussed the background of the controversy in EI, including issues with the
construct of EI itself and whether or not it includes too many descriptors that are better matched
to personality traits or social skills. Pros and cons of four different models were discussed,
including the EQ-i, MSCEIT, ECI, and the Trait Emotional Intelligence (TEIQue). Challenges
of measuring EI were discussed, EI applications to the workplace covered, and a final conclusion
made that a distinction should be made between social competence and emotional intelligence.
Ten response articles follow Cherniss’s work, none of them adding any new real-world research
to the mix, but they provide more proof in the pudding that EI and ESI are not an easy to apply in
practice with certainty. Yet, despite the elusiveness of a single construct for EI/ESI, the demand
for EI assessments continues to grow. Best practices using EI and ESI are overdue for those who
want to help individuals and organizations succeed-but face a paralysis of analysis from too
much contradictory and conflicting data on the subject.
Application
Introduction to the Application
After a thorough survey of the literature surrounding EI several themes have emerged.
One theme being no one can seem to agree on what EI is, yet most expert scientists and many
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 18
practitioners have entrenched opinions. Cherniss observed that the only options seem to be
dismissing EI as a construct completely, accepting that there are multitudes of definitions, or
picking one model and saying it is the best (2010). Also dubious is the perception in the
literature that one must either select the mixed-model of EI or the ability models (Cherniss, 2010;
Meyer & Fletcher, 2007; Salovey, Mayer, Caruso, & Lopes, 2003). Bar-On agues this debate is
meaningless, astutely pointing out that, “All models of human behaviors are influenced at least to
some extend by a (mixed) cross-section of bio-psycho-social predictors and facilitators including
biomedical predispositions and conditions, cognitive intelligence, personality, motivations and
environmental influences” (2006, p. 18). However, not one other source seems to even
acknowledge, let alone agree with his position. The last theme which appears in the literature is
that there are diametrically opposed motivation for scientists and scholar-practitioners involved
with EI. Scientists are determined to thoroughly examine EI through validity, reliability, and
psychometric tests and measurement until they prove EI is useful; while practitioners are already
applying EI successfully with individual and organizational performance (High Performing
Systems, 2009). Without a consensus among or within I-O psychology scientist or practitioners,
making a decision to use EI in any application is retarded by doubt and fear—a paralysis by
analysis takes grip of those yet to find their own voice in this scientific debate. Knowledge for
the sake of knowledge is useless in an academic vacuum; real-world results are important and
matter.
Other Options to Apply EI?
There can be no doubt that something other than intellectual ability and personality is
influencing the outcome of individual and organizational performance. While scientists may not
agree with any decision made through common sense and pure tacit knowledge, there cannot
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 19
logically be any arguments against the reality that emotions directly and indirectly affect
outcomes. The question for the practitioner who uses EI is how to most appropriately and
effectively implement EI interventions. To answer this will require applying principals outside of
I-O psychology by including the knowledge, skills, and abilities found in Consulting
Psychology.
Consulting psychology can help.
Division 14, the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychologist (SIOP) represents
one the 54 divisions in the APA (APA, 2011). To think that the recommendations and best-
practices in SIOP can alone settle the challenges of implementing EI and EI assessments
programs for individual and organizations is wishful thinking at best, egotistical at worst. To
help solve the puzzle of determining a best practice or practices with EI, fusing together the
knowledge of Division 14, SIOP, with Division 13, the Society of Consulting Psychology (SCP)
may aid in clearing up the confusion. Consulting psychologist (CP) use empirical based
evidence to help their clients in issue of human behavior at work (APA, 2007). Training to be
able to complete such tasks involves a strong understand of psychological concepts like life span
development, learning and cognition, industrial and organizational, and leadership psychology.
It also requires self-awareness, professional and ethical standards, knowledge of business
regulations, technology, research methods and statistics (APA, 2007). Psychology consultants
are also trained to ask themselves if they have the skills necessary to complete the job (Robinson
& Gross, 1985). Leveraging the best of both I-O and CP will assist in finding right combinations
of EI and EI assessment for I-O practitioners (and one can also assume consulting psychologists
as well) who want maximize solutions for individuals and organizations which utilize EI.
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 20
Purpose of the Application
The purpose of this application is to provide guidelines and best practices when using EI
and EI assessment for practitioners of I-O psychology. EI applications need to be determined by
the expertise of the psychologist and the needs of the client. Finding a balance will be the key to
effective results. Keeping an open mind about which EI definition and assessment as dependent
upon the situation can be the driving impetus of bringing greater utility to EI applications. As
scientist, scholars, or practitioners, nothing ought to matter as much as the outcomes of the
research or application. No matter if the outcomes will influence the scientist directly through
research grants, prestige, or the practitioners’ pocket-book—outcomes for the individual and
organization must be why the construct of EI is used. Instead of EI being used to make
predictions about certain outcomes the focus should be on outcomes first, and then identify the
EI criteria or criterion to help understand the phenomenon (Kaplan, Cortina, & Ruark, 2010).
Keeping the end-result of improving the outcomes for individuals who experience emotions and
the organizations that employee the emotional employee can and must be the priority for
everyone involved with EI.
Description and Elements of the Application
In the next two sub-sections the background and use of two important consulting
psychology practices, process consultation (PC) and outcome-based consulting (OBC) will be
described. Using these two practices in conjunction with the information provided earlier about
the different platforms of EI and EI assessment will be what practitioners of I-O psychology can
rely upon to decided how to best proceed when using EI and EI assessments with their clients.
Process consultation.
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 21
Many psychology consultants rely on Schein’s Process Consultation Theory (Schein,
1990) when deciding on how they choose to actually engage with their clients as they complete
their consultation. To be sure one is competent to work as an organizational consultant; the
APA (2007) recommends knowledge of PC and ethical and professional standards as core skills
necessary to consult. Process consultation is an integrated approach to problem solving that
requires all the challenges of the organization be worked on together by both the consultant and
organization collaboratively. It is about trying to help organizations take ownership of their
challenges or deficiencies in a manner that does not allow the client to distance themselves from
the problems, while giving and teaching them empowerment to make the changes they need
(Schein, 1990). Process Consultation seeks to eliminate impressions of consultants as simply
subject matter experts, or doctor like, who when after hearing about symptoms make a
recommendation for the client to take that will fix the problems. But rather are there to help
clients define or redefine what their challenges are by helping them recognize and take
ownership of their problems to create long term solutions (Schein, 1990). Regarding the use of
EI, this makes perfect sense to incorporate because it recognizes the individuality of the client
and places the impendence of change onto the client themselves. Emotions are not typically (if
ever) changeable from the outside the owner of the emotions.
In order to bring about this kind of attitude or behavior the consultant must begin by
asking questions (Schein, 1990). One type of question that can help facilitate this PC approach is
called behavior description questioning. This type of questioning is used to help by having
clients answer questions about actual or similar situations they have faced in the past in order to
help the consultant understand how the client may act in a similar situation (Golembiewski,
2000). This process helps to prevent the consultant from bringing in their own prejudices about
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 22
the client and to start with a clear and pristine understanding of the client. Now because of the
complexities of most individuals and organizations—it is nearly impossible for any consultant to
create a solution that will be continued once he or she is gone, unless the client takes ownership
and has full buy-in of the solutions (Schein, 1990). In spite of having the goal of not having or
wanting to play the expert or doctor, it may be necessary to act out this role for the client, and
that is okay when necessary (Schein, 1990). Process Consultation is a symbiotic relationship that
will succeed if both the client and the consultant know that they do not have enough information
individually, but together can solve their challenges (Leong & Huang, 2008).
Outcome-based consulting.
Outcome-based consulting is concerned with the final result of the consultation.
Commonly, consultants are imagined as an individual or group that goes into another business,
collect data, tell the business what is wrong, and then provide a solution to be implemented.
Schaffer disagrees with this premise ardently and proposes that consultants focus on the end
results and creating a new paradigm in consultant behavior which is outcome driven and ends
with high impact consulting (1999). This paradigm shift is largely driven by goals, similarly to
what is recommended to help implement performance management strategies for consulting
themselves (Hedge and Borman, 2008). Schaffer’s purpose in this mental shift is to switch the
force of change from the consultant to the client, with a goal of improved and more reliable
results.
The formula for success in an OBC approach can be broken down into a fivefold model.
To be effective, consultants need to define the scope of the project with specific and measurable
goals, determine what the client is willing to following through on their part, piece meal larger
projects into smaller and more manageable steps, make the project a full collaboration between
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 23
consultant and business, and lastly give advice when needed by assessing what the client can or
cannot change on their own (Schaffer, 1999). Outcome-Based Consulting has not only been
suggested in consulting with businesses, but also in bringing in new leadership to organizations,
as well as helping new leaders emerge in their roles (Levin, 2010).
Using the Applications
For EI and EI assessments to be used effectively by practitioners some guidelines are
hereby suggested. First, as there is currently no perfect measure of IQ, be aware that there is no
perfect model of EI. Second, know and understand at a minimum the three most widely
recognized EI models and assessment (ECI, EQ-i, and MSCEIT), and continually monitor peer-
reviewed research on the topic, adding new and subtracting outdated concepts as science
improves the validity and reliability of current and emerging EI models and assessments. Keep
in mind that each new addition or subtraction will have pros and cons that need to be considering
as part of the final step, using PC and OBC. Belief in a particular model or EI assessment is
unimportant when considering how it will benefit the end user. By actively integrating PC and
OCB into the use of EI and EI assessments, overall effectiveness will be enhanced for the client
and the concern about which EI model or assessment is best will be put in its right place; behind
the needs of the client.
Target Population
The target population of those who can benefit from using EI assessments can vary from
large organizations to the individual seeking 1:1 consulting for personal development. In the
context of this particular application it is about providing guidance to those who would be the
practitioners to these groups a practical application and process which they can rely upon when
they choose to use EI. Therefore the target populations are I-O practitioners and others who may
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 24
be qualified to order, administer, score, and provide individuals or organizations feedback on
their EI assessment results. Even more specifically, it will be the goal of this project to have 10
current or soon to be practitioner of EI and EI assessments consider this application in the next
six months. While the entire population may not be enrolled with this application, implications
for whole profession are possible with time.
Potential Contributions of the Application to Area of Specialization
Organizations seeking to fulfill their goals will encounter barriers to actualizing their
results. No matter if a company is non-profit, for-profit, or a government entity, there are costs
associated with doing business and striving for organizational outcomes. Much of the friction in
operating a business which prevents outcomes from being delivered comes directly from costs
associated with people. Diminishing returns and/or marginal utility of employee performance is
experienced by organization via correlations between employee personality and job satisfaction
(Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002), employee stress and performance (Fried, Shirom, Gilboa, &
Cooper, 2008), and as show in the literature review and introduction, via EI. The contribution of
this paper will be guiding practitioners on how best to approach using EI assessment based on
desired outcomes of the client, and the unique circumstances of the client. Much of the current
literature on the subject of EI assessments is that you should or should not use assessments at
all. This all or nothing attitude does nothing to help end user of the product, the client. Simply
being pro EQ-i 2.0, ECI, or MSCEIT does not make the assessment necessarily fit the situation
at hand for the person, group, or organization. Using a PC or OBC in collaboration with EI and
EI assessment can and will bring about clear protocol that I-O practitioners can use when it has
been determined with the client that EI and EI assessment can help the client.
Implementation of the Specific Application
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 25
Having laid out the history, background, and current theoretical framework of EI and EI
assessment, their use will be guided by CP and OCB theories as previously described. The goal
will be having this article available on different web-based practitioner resources such as
www.eiconsortium.com, www.mhs.com, personal business websites, and user groups online
(such as Linked-In). It is proposed that in the next six-moths a target population of 10 current I-
O psychologists (either Masters of PhD educated) will be reeducated in choosing the appropriate
EI model and assessment based on the needs and desired outcomes of the clients rather than the
politics of the different EI camps in scientific literature.
Evaluation of Application
Evaluation of any research or training program is important because it allows for both a
critique of the efforts put forth, as well as where improvements and adjustments can be made for
future research or training. Change will be identified by both qualitative and quantitative data
that investigates both attitudes and opinions of those practitioners before and after reading the
application proposed. To investigate more fully if this method is effective; determine if there are
any unexpected outcomes; know if the work has a positive or negative effect, and identify
change in the I-O practitioners who participate, Kirkpatrick’s model of evaluation will be
utilized.
Kirkpatrick’s Evaluation Model
Kirkpatrick’s evaluation model is frequently cited in peer reviewed as well as non-
scientific sources for its four criteria of evaluation training programs: reaction, learning,
behavior, and results (Arthur, Bennett, Edens, and Bell, 2003; London, 2007). Using all four
parts of the Kirkpatrick’s evaluation model would be the best approach here since it offers a full
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 26
view of the entire reeducation process. Evaluation could even potentially be extended beyond
the practitioner to any clients of who are benefactors of the application describe in this paper.
Reaction and learning.
According to Kirkpatrick’s website (Kirkpatrick Partners, 2009) reaction asks if the
participants like the training, and learning asks if the participants gained the knowledge, skills,
and abilities which were expected to gained as outcomes of the training. These two parts of the
evaluation methods can be explored qualitative and quantitatively. Baseline measurement will be
taken before the reeducation to determine the participants current level of comfort with using EI
and EI assessment using a five-point Likert scale. After the 10 practitioners of I-O psychology
have read the application, they will be asked to describe their comfort with the use of EI
assessments by using a five-point Likert scale. Data will also be collected qualitatively by
asking for feedback from participants. These questions will ask, what did you learn from this
paper that has helped you to use EI assessments, what do you still have questions about, what
strengths did you see in this new approach, what are the weaknesses you see? The quantitative
data will be scored by comparing mean scores pre and post intervention, while the qualitative
data will be scrutinized by reviewing for common elements among responses in an attempt to
solidify the validity and reliability of the results. However, the small sample will initially limit
the applicability to the general EI community.
Behavior and results.
Behavior examines if the participants use what they learned in training on the job, and
results are the examination of if the expected outcomes have change since the intervention
(Kirkpatrick Partners, 2009). Behavior and results outcomes will also be measured by a simple
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 27
questionnaire asking readers of the paper to describe their comfort level with EI and EI
assessments pre and post reading, asking if they are now or will be willing to use the application
in their practices, and (eventually at a later data collection time) if clients have reports any
significant feedback that is either qualitatively or quantitatively different than previous efforts of
using EI models and assessment with knowledge of the application proposed here. Other
qualitative data will be acquired on behavioral changes by asking for feedback and criticism on if
the application increase confidence of I-O practitioners in their ability to integrate EI into their
practices. Based on the overall results of the evaluation, the application proposed here will be
refined again to continuously improve the recommendations of this application so EI
practitioners can be more successful using EI and EI assessments with their clients.
Reflecting on Professional Knowledge and Skill
Information, Skills, and Professional Attributes
The most important distinction I-O psychologists and psychology consultants have
compared to other business consultants is their training in the scientific method, and their
responsibility to follow the professions’ ethical guidelines and principals. This is critical to the
application of EI and EI assessments as having clients take EI assessments is not (at least should
not be) possible without a qualified psychology professional to purchase, administer, score, and
provide feedback of the assessment. Guidelines for ethical practices can be viewed on the
APA’s website link to their ethical standards (APA, 2010). An even more comprehensive set of
guidelines and “Standards” for educational and psychologist testing was drafted by the APA,
American Educational Research Association (AERA), and the National Council on Measurement
in Education (NCME) that examines test construction, evaluation, documentation, fairness in
testing, and testing application AERA, APA, NCME, 1999). Other ethical codes of conduct
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 28
exists that can be helpful as a resource to psychologist including the Belmont Report and its
principals of respect, beneficence, and justice whenever working with human participants
(Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1979), to the following of the organization’s
code of conduct where psychologist is employed.
Psychological assessment like any of the one’s mention in this application at an
organizational level should begin with job or competence analysis (Cook & Cripps, 2005). This
provides a basis for the assessment and the foundation for its use (APA, 2010). Once the job or
competence analysis is completed--individual assessments should be selected and checked for
adverse action, if they are job related, if they have bias against women or minority groups,
whether they or will or will not cause harm to the applicants, or are intrusive beyond what is
necessary to determine if they match the criteria found during the job or competence analysis
(Cook & Cripps, 2005). Choosing an assessor who is trained in administering and interpreting
the results of the assessment (see APA code 9.07, “Assessment by Unqualified persons”) is also a
key process of ethical assessment planning (Cook & Cripps, 2005; APA, 2010). Having such an
ethical framework to work from in the planning stage of an assessment process helps to mitigate
risk, promotes accurate results, and is professionally important for psychologist because it helps
to build credibility in the use of assessments by psychologist. Without such credibility the use of
assessments that helps organizations and individuals could lack the credibility they need to be
trusted and used. These criteria are extremely important if using an assessment is related to
selection or promotions, and may be slightly less important if results will only be used for
professional development and kept confidential between psychologist and individual clients
within an organization.
Theoretical Orientation
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 29
As is hopefully apparent in reading the previous sections—one’s own theoretical
orientation should include the use of valid and reliable data and the awareness of the practical
needs, and outcomes that can be affected via that data. In proposing an application to a popular
and controversial psychological construct (EI), it is easy and difficult to take a stance on which
direction the construct should be used. As shown in the literature review section, there are a
committed psychology professional who can “prove” their side is correct (that being EI is a valid
construct or not) using psychometrics, deductive and inductive reasoning, and via
experimentation. If you have a preference for one side of the argument, than it becomes easy to
find data and research that support your side. However, what seems to happen in the research
already published is the argument for or against on view become completely blind to the other
sides position and findings. So, while it may be easy to pick a side, it is difficult to maintain any
sense of impartiality because to make your side look right requires that the opposing viewpoints
are minimized or ignored (as is Bar-On’s arguments for mixed-models). Yet, this is nothing
particular to psychology or social sciences, as even the natural sciences have their own
controversial theories and models. Stephen Hawking’s theories on the black holes was criticized
harshly by other scientist, as were many of most well-known scientist including Newton and
Einstein. Fortunately, in the end only the truth prevails. Now unlike natural sciences where
things either are or are not, the final truth of a psychological construct could be lie anywhere on
the polar extremes.
In another challenging spot when developing a theoretical viewpoint of using EI is to not
be hypocritical. Part of the challenges when working with EI are the clashing viewpoints of the
scientist and practitioner who both have solid positions in their arguments about validity and
reliability of the different EI models and assessments. To criticize scientists for being too
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 30
focused on finding a pure and perfect EI model, and then picking say the EQ-i over the MSCEIT
for an organizational intervention because data in your arguments says so, even though you can
find data that supports the exact opposite (and don’t share that) is to be hypocritical. It makes no
sense to take the practitioners perspective and use EI in your practice because the data you read
makes sense to you on one assessment, and then avoid or prefer one model over another because
of its psychometric properties—then you’d be actually validating the scientist viewpoint that
neither should be used until it has been conclusively proven that EI really describes EI, and not
personality or another construct. The only way to avoid this dilemma for the practitioner is to
use their tacit knowledge of experience. While qualitative in nature, and perhaps not at the level
of scientific rigor Wundt showed in his laboratory in Germany through introspection, it is almost
laughable that practitioners (and scientists) who use and study EI seem unwilling to take an
emotional stance that they have an intuitive feeling about the validity of one model over another.
All the nonsense about bashing or preferring one EI model or assessment over another, and
validating that argument with data which can be shown in the exact opposite magnitude of
someone who disagrees, is actualizing that intuition emotionally through the guise of scientific
debate. In the end, if different models and assessments can provide utility for individuals and
organizations, then they should be the final arbiter of which models and assessments live on.
Characteristics of the Culturally Skilled Practitioner
Multiculturalism.
There are certainly many reasons why a comprehensive understanding of
multiculturalism should be at the top of the list for I-O psychologists to be considered culturally
skilled. Human behavior is not the same across the globe and is increasingly heterogeneous in
all communities, and by default, workplaces and organizations that lay within those areas.
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 31
Culture is defined by Landy & Conte as “a system in which individual share meanings and
common ways of viewing events and objects” (2007, p. 28). Multiculturalism simply means that
there may be several or more ways of how workers interpret events in the workplace. Hopefully
more leaders and managers are recognizing the value (not just the legal requirements of having a
multicultural work environment) and the impact of being culturally aware can have on
performance, efficiently, and effectiveness of organizations. Historically, the most well know
and ground breaking work on multiculturalism was done by Dutch scientist, Geert Hofstede.
Hofstede’s theory of cultural difference examines the variance of cultures in their
preferences for power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, and time
orientation (Hofstede, 2009). His cultural theories provide a solid way to navigate the terrain of
the cultural diversity found in many organizations. Power distance is the acceptance that power
is distributed unevenly (Hofstede, 2009). Individualism is when the individual is left to fend for
themself, or collectivism where the individual is taken care of by the group (family, ect.)
(Hofstede, 2009). Masculine and feminine culture refers to the gender roles typically accepted.
Masculine cultures are seen as tough and emphasize accomplishments and performance, while
feminine cultures focus on interpersonal relationships and communication (Landy & Conte,
2009). Uncertainty avoidance is a society’s acceptance of uncertainty and ambiguity (Hofstede,
2009). Societies that want certainty, have strict laws and rules to minimize uncomfortable
situations, while cultures more tolerant of uncertainty are more open to a variety of truths and
philosophic concepts as well as more willing to listen to alternative explanations (Hofstede,
2009). Lastly, long-term verse short term orientated culture is the degree in time which members
of the culture expect the fulfillment of their needs (Landy & Conte, 2007).
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 32
What do these differences mean to the practicing I-O psychologist? Cultural differences
will affect the way workers are driven by everything, from salary, hiring decisions, motivation,
leader motivation, compensation, decision making, and loyalty to employees/employers (Landy
& Conte, 2007). Job analyses are important when understand what task and responsibilities are
required by workers. Depending on the cultural the work is from, they may find the task(s) are
valid, or seemingly misplaced. There are a limitless amount of activities that take place at work
that can go wrong if the leader, manager, or even a co-worker do, say, or act that can offend,
confuse, or anger a co-worker because of cultural ignorance. Educating employees, managers,
and executives to be aware of these differences can help diffuse many issues that arise on the job.
I/O psychologist must too be aware of how their decision can impact different cultures; for
example, giving production groups more power in an organization whose workers come from a
culture with high power distance could make things worse. This and other erroneous actions can
be avoided by a high level understand of how multicultural influences human action in industry
and organizations. Add together awareness of employee EI and their cultural tendencies, a
recipe for more empathic and understand workforce sprouts into the air.
Reflecting on Personal Beliefs and Values
Diversity is one of the reasons for the unique cultural and individual expressions of
human beings. Because of the diversity of the human experience each individual has their own
beliefs, life experiences, attitudes, values, and basis that influence their everyday action,
thoughts, and manifestations. These human attributes effect each and every one; even the
scholar, practitioner, and scientist. To detecting bias in oneself requires cognizance of
preferences for common tendencies, thinking, and behaviors. This is where the community of
psychology plays a large role. Publishing one's work or idea in a peer-reviewed journal, a
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 33
Linked-In I-O group, or even tweeting one's idea is a full 360-degree method to receive valuable
feedback on potential and actual ethical biases. Many claim to bias free, but it is truly the
humble practitioner who says they can acknowledge they too have unrecognized biases. This is
the minimum awareness that should be striven for when reflecting upon a basic ethical
framework of values and beliefs. The convenient truth is there already is a guidebook in place to
facilitate an even strong allegiance to this awareness in the ethical guidelines of the APA. They
exist through careful examination and reflection by psychologist that attempting to dislodge the
current state of affairs for an individual, group, and organization may as likely cause harm as
good. In the next subsection are some real examples of how this might play out in actuality.
Facing Ethical Dilemmas
One ethical dilemma that has and will likely be encountered again is working with clients
who want to use EI assessments for purposes for other than which they were intended. For
instance, perhaps a client wants to use an EI assessment to validate firing an employee. This is
an unacceptable and misuse of an application, which is in violation of APA Ethical Standard
1.03 (Conflict between ethical and organizational demands), Standard 3.01 (unfair
discrimination), Standard 9.02 (use of assessments) and Principal A of the Ethics Code of
Beneficence and Nonmaleficence, the principal to do no harm (APA, 2010; Lowman, 2006).
These types of misuses should have been addressed during contracting, but may require that the
I-O consultant simply must walk away from some jobs.
Other challenges that are particularly troubling have happened enough that they appear as
example of ethical dilemmas in a book on ethics of psychology in organizations, and are:
avoiding conflicts of interests and roles, (not) accurately reporting results, recoding data without
consent, misusing data obtained through a consulting engagement, having to avoid a dual
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 34
relationship with the employer and employees, pressure to implement psychological programs
too quickly, and failure to keep the confidentiality of employees using employee assistance
programs (Lowman, 2006). Maintaining an ethical practice may sometime interfere with the
business of psychology consulting. There are stories of many psychology consultants that have
walked away from job rather than practice unethically. There are also examples of those who
provided unethical services by misuse of their psychology work, having multiple relationships,
breaching confidentiality agreements, and even causing harm to employees or the organization
(Lowman, 2006). Reputation of a consultant may take month, years, even decades to build—it
only takes one mistake to ruin a reputation. The safest protocol to follow when working with
diverse client populations is to always adhere to the “Standards” published by the AREA, APA,
NCME (1999), and to stick closely to the APA’s Ethical Standards (2010). When situations
arise where doubt creeps into the mind of the consultant about a proper course of action to take;
wiser-more knowledgeable experts are only an email, text, or phone call away to help.
Strengths of Professional Competencies
As previously stated, I-O psychology is the study of human behavior at work that uses the
scientific method to guide its best practices. While not a perfect science, or one that can state
with 100% certainty the accuracy of its theories, models, and applications--having been training
in the science of psychology is a major strength of the I-O psychologist. I-O psychologists must
commit themselves to continuous improvement in their own knowledge, skills, abilities, and
continue to interact with fellow scientists, practitioners, and scholars to stay abreast of
developments; even if disagreements exist on what EI is or is not, and how (or if) it should be
used in practice. “I/O psychology is the scientific study of the workplace. Rigor and methods of
psychology are applied to issues of critical relevance to business, including talent management,
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 35
coaching, assessment, selection, training, organizational development, performance, and work-
life balance” (SIOP, 2011). This definition should serve to remind all that I-O psychology is
about using science to improve society through our expertise in human behaviors at the industrial
and organizational level. Until societies become static, staying engage with each other, despite
our different beliefs should considered it an honor to debate and challenge each other for the
desire to solve the challenges and riddles of all who work.
References
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National
Council on Measurement in Education (1999). Standards for Educational and
Psychological Testing, Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
American Psychological Association (2007). Guidelines for education and training at the
doctoral and postdoctoral levels in consulting psychology/organizational
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 36
consulting psychology. American Psychologist, 62(9), 980-992. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.62.9.980.
American Psychological Association (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of
conduct. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx
American Psychological Association. (2011). Divisions. Retrieved from
http://www.apa.org/about/division/index.aspx
Anshel, M., & Kang, M. (2007). Effect of an intervention on replacing negative habits with
positive routines for improving full engagement at work: A test of the disconnected
values model. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 59(2), 110-125.
doi:10.1037/1065-9293.59.2.110.
Appelbaum, S.A. (1973). Psychological mindedness: word, concept, and essence. International
Journal of Psych-Analysis, 54, 35-46.
Arthur, W., Bennett, W., Edens, P., & Bell, S. (2003). Effectiveness of training in organizations:
A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2),
234-245. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.234.
Bar-On, R. (2006). The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence. Psicothema, 18, supl.,
13-25
Blattner, J., & Bacigalupo, A. (2007). Using emotional intelligence to develop executive
leadership and team and organizational development. Consulting Psychology Journal:
Practice and Research, 59(3), 209-219. doi:10.1037/1065-9293.59.3.209
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 37
Cherniss, C. (2010). Emotional intelligence: Toward clarification of a concept. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 3 (2), 110-126.
Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2008). Research in industrial and organizational psychology from
1963 to 2007: Changes, choices, and trends. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1062-
1081. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1062
Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations (2010). Measures of
emotional intelligence. Retrieved from
http://www.eiconsortium.org/measures/measures.html.
Cook, M., & Cripps, B. (2005). Psychological assessment in the workplace: A manager's guide.
New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN: 9780470861639.
Cronbach, L.J. (1960). Essentials of psychology testing (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper &
Row.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles
and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington, DC: OPRR
Reports.
Doll, E.A. (1935). A generic model of social maturity. American Journal of Orthopsychology, 5,
180-188.
Dries, N., & Pepermans, R. (2007). Using emotional intelligence to identify high potential: A
metacompetency perspective Emerald Group Publishing, Limited.
doi:10.1108/01437730710835470
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 38
Fried, Y., Shirom, A., Gilboa, S., & Cooper, C. L. (2008). The mediating effects of job
satisfaction and propensity to leave on role stress-job performance relationships:
Combining meta-analysis and structural equation modeling. International Journal of
Stress Management, 15(4), 305-328. doi:10.1037/a0013932
Golembiewski, R. T. (2000). The interview as a consulting tool. Handbook of Organizational
Consultation Second Ed., 607–616. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, NY
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence: Why it can matter more the IQ. New York, NY:
Bantam Books.
Grant, A. (2008, January). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational
synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93(1), 48-58. Retrieved August 17, 2009, doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.48
Hay Group McClelland Center for Research and Innovation. (2005). Emotional Competence
Inventory (ECI) Technical Manual. Retrived from
http://www.eiconsortium.org/pdf/ECI_2_0_Technical_Manual_v2.pdf
Hedge, J., & Borman, W. (2008). Career and performance management with consultants. The I/O
consultant: Advice and insights for building a successful career (pp. 195-201).
Washington, DC US: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/11755-024.
High Performing Systems. (2009). The emotional intelligence community. Retrieved from
http://www.hpsys.com/Emotional_Intelligence.htm
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 39
Hofstede, G (2009). A summary of my ideas about national culture differences. Retrieved from
http://stuwww.uvt.nl/~csmeets/PAGE3.HTM
InnerWork Company, The. (2009). Innerwork clients. Retrieved from
http://www.innerworkcompany.com/clients.html
Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis
and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 54-78.
doi:10.1037/a0017286
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job
satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 530-541.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.530
Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2009). Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and
issues (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Kaplan, S., Cortina, J., & Ruark, G. (2010). Oops..We did it again: Industrial-organizational’s
focus on emotional intelligence instead of on its relationships to work outcomes.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3 (2), 171-177.
Kirkpatrick Partners (2009). The Kirkpatrick philosophy: The Kirkpatrick model. Retrieved
from: http://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/OurPhilosophy/tabid/66/Default.aspx
Landy, J. & Conte, J. (2007). Work in the 21st Century: An introduction to industrial and
organizational psychology (2nd ed.). Blackwell Publishing. ISBN: 9781405144346.
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 40
Lane, R.D., & Schwartz, G.E. (1987). Levels of emotional awareness: a cognitive development
theory and its application to psychopathology. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144,
133-143.
Leary, M., Reilly, M., & Brown, F. (2009). A study of personality preferences and emotional
intelligence. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. doi:10.1108/01437730910968697
Leong, F., & Huang, J. (2008). Applying the cultural accommodation model to diversity
consulting in organizations. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,
60(2), 170-185. doi:10.1037/0736-9735.60.2.170
Levin, I. (2010). New leader assimilation process: Accelerating new role-related transitions.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(1), 56-72.
doi:10.1037/a0018630
London, M. (2007). Performance appraisal for groups: Models and methods for assessing group
processes and outcomes for development and evaluation. Consulting Psychology Journal:
Practice and Research, 59(3), 175-188. doi:10.1037/1065-9293.59.3.175.
Lowman, R.L., (Ed.). (2006). The ethical practice of psychology in organizations (2nd ed.).
Green, OH: SIOP
Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D.R., Salovey, P,. & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring emotional
intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion, 3(1), 97-105.
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 41
Meyer, B., & Fletcher, T. B. (2007). Emotional intelligence: A theoretical overview and
implications for research and professional practice in sport psychology. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 19(1), 1-15. doi:10.1080/10413200601102904
MHS. (2009). Emotional intelligence and return on investment: Return on your EQ-i
investment. Retrieved from http://downloads.mhs.com/ei/MHS_Brief_ROI.pdf
MHS. (2011). The EQ-i 2.0 model. Retrieved from
http://catalyst.mhs.com/EQi20TheModel.aspx
Muyia, H., & Kacirek, K. (2009). An empirical study of leadership development training
program and its implications on emotional intelligence quotient score. Advance in
Developing Human Resouce 6(11), 703-718. doi: 10.1177/1523422309360844
O*Net Online. (2010). Summary report for: 19-3032.00 - Industrial-Organizational
Psychologists. Retrieved from http://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/19-3032.00
Perlini, A. H., & Halverson, T. R. (2006). Emotional intelligence in the National Hockey
League. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du
comportement, 38(2), 109-119. doi:10.1037/cjbs2006001
Pope, K.S. (1992). Responsibility in providing psychological test feedback to clients.
Psychological Assessments, 4(3), 268-271. doi:10.1037/h0092775.
Robinson, S.E, & Gross, D.R. (1985). Ethics of consultation: The canterville ghost. The
Counseling Psychologist, 13, 444-465. doi: 10.1177/0011000085133013
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J.D. (1990). Emotional Intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and
Personality, 9(3), 185-211.
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 42
Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D., & Lopes, P. N. (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence
as a set of abilities with the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test. In S. J.
Lopez, C. R. Snyder, S. J. Lopez, C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment:
A handbook of models and measures (pp. 251-265). American Psychological Association.
doi:10.1037/10612-016
Schaffer, R. (1999). Replacing recommendations with results: A new paradigm for consulting.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 51(4), 242-251.
doi:10.1037/1061-4087.51.4.242.
Schein, E. H. (1990). A general philosophy of helping: Process consultation. Sloan Management
Review, 31(3), 57. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 812316).
Sharma,S., Deller, J., Biswal, R., & Mandal, M.K.(2009). Emotional intelligence: Factorial
structure and construct validity across cultures. International Journal of Cross
Cultural Managemen. 9(2): 217-236. DOI: 10.1177/1470595809335725
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychologist (2011). Society for industrial and
organizational psychology, inc. Retrieved from http://www.siop.org/default.aspx
Stein, S., Papadogiannis, P., Yip, J., & Sitarenios, G. (2009). Emotional intelligence of leaders:
A profile of top executives Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
doi:10.1108/01437730910927115
Thorndike, E.L. (1920). Intelligence and its uses. Harper’s Magazine, 140, 227-235.
INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 43
van Deventer, J. (2009). Ethical considerations during human centred overt and covert research.
Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 43(1), 45-57.
doi:10.1007/s11135-006-9069-8.
Weschler, D. (1958). Nonintellective factors in general intelligence. Psychological Bulletin, 37,
444-445.
Top Related