1. Emotional Intelligence as a High-Potential Identification Tool:
Department of Work, Organizational and Economic Psychology (WOEPs)
Research supported by VUB OZR 1040 BOF
Contact:
Emotional Intelligence as a High-Potential Identification Tool:
Taking the Metacompetency Perspective.
Nicky Dries & Roland Pepermans
INTRODUCTION
NON-HIPO
HIPO
This paper aims to demonstrate the utility of using some indication of emotional intelligence (EI) to identify high potential in managers. Presupposed correspondences between the EI personal factors model (Bar-On, 1997) and Briscoe and Hall’s (1999) metacompetency model of continuous learning are shown in Figure 1.
EI personal factors model
Metacompetency model
METHOD
Assertiveness
Independence
Flexibility
Optimism
Social responsibility
6. Emotional self-awareness
7. Self-regard
8. Self-actualization
9. Empathy
10. Interpersonal relationships
11. Problem solving
12. Reality testing
13. Happiness
14. Stress tolerance
15. Impulse control
Dialogue skills (+)
Acting on personal values (+)
Flexibility (+)
Openness to innovation (+)
Developing others (-)
Self-assessment
Adapting self-perceptions
Accepting new challenges
Engaging in personal development
Openness to diversity
Learning through others
Acting on feedback
Exploration
Comfort with turbulent change
The study sample consisted of 51 high potentials (“hipo”) and 51 regular managers (“non-hipo”), matched onto one another by managerial level, gender and age. All participants completed an online survey containing Bar-On’s Emotional Quotient Inventory (1997), a self-anchored performance item and Blau’s career commitment scale (1989).
RESULTS
EQ-i subscales ‘assertiveness’, ‘independence’, ‘optimism’, ‘flexibility’ and ‘social responsibility’ appear to be covert high-potential identification criteria separating between high potentials and regular managers. Furthermore, high potentials display higher levels of job performance and, supposedly, less boundaryless career attitudes.
DISCUSSION
Using emotional intelligence – or at least some of its subscales – in identifying high potential may well contribute to the validity of such processes. Furthermore, cultivating positive emotions at work emerged from the data as an important issue facing high-potential identification and development policies and retention management.
Self-anchored performance item
“When comparing yourself to co-workers who hold similar jobs, how would you rate your own performance (supposing that 0 is the performance of your worst performing co-worker and 10 that of your best performing co-worker)?” (+)
ADDED VALUE
Career commitment scale
In the majority of studies on high potentials, direct supervisors serve as research samples or a non-empirical, rather ‘normative’ approach is taken to the matter. The empirical study presented in this paper is rather unique since it departs from the viewpoints of high-potential individuals, thus delivering added value to the study domain.
1. “If I could get another job different from this profession and paying the same amount, I would probably take it” (-)
2. “I like this vocation too well to give it up”
3. “If I could do it all over again, I would not choose to work in this profession”
4. “ I definitely want a career for myself in this profession”
5. “If I had all the money I needed without working, I would probably still continue to work in this profession”
6. “I am disappointed that I ever entered this profession”
7. “This is the ideal vocation for a life work”
REFERENCES
Bar-On, R. (1997), Emotional Quotient Inventory: Technical Manual, Multi-Health Systems, Toronto.
Blau, G. J. (1985), “The measurement and prediction of career commitment”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp
Briscoe, J.P. & Hall, D.T. (1999), “Grooming and Picking Leaders Using Competency Frameworks: Do They Work? An Alternative Approach and New Guidelines for Practice”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp
Figure 1. Differences between “hipos” and “non hipos” on the study scales *
* Significant differences are marked in blue;
(+) = hipos score significantly higher;
(-) = non-hipos score significantly higher