Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3 (2010), 159164.

Copyright 2010 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 1754-9426/10

COMMENTARIES

Emotional Intelligence and Job

Performance: The Importance
of Emotion Regulation and
Emotional Labor Context
DANIEL A. NEWMAN AND DANA L. JOSEPH
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
CAROLYN MACCANN
University of Sydney

Cherniss (2010) described three issues

that need to be addressed en route to
considering emotional intelligence (EI) a
useful construct for personnel psychology: (a) empirical evidence that EI predicts job performance, (b) distinguishing
between models of EI and models of
emotional and social competence (ESC),
and (c) some unresolved EI measurement
problems. A recent meta-analysis ( Joseph &
Newman, 2010) illuminates the first of these
topics while considering the second and
therefore provides empirical tests for many
of Chernisss conceptual ideas. Regarding
the third issue, we also point to recent developments in EI measurement based on situational judgment testing (SJT; MacCann &
Roberts, 2008; Orchard et al., 2009).
In this commentary, we focus particularly on two key concepts we believe are
necessary to understand the relationship
Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Daniel A. Newman.
E-mail: d5n@uiuc.edu
Address: Department of Psychology, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 603 East Daniel Street,
Champaign, IL 61820
Daniel A. Newman and Dana L. Joseph, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign; Carolyn MacCann, School of Psychology,
University of Sydney.

between EI and job performance: emotion

regulation and emotional labor. First, we
emphasize the value of distinguishing
between the different facets of EI (i.e.,
emotion perception, emotion facilitation,
emotion understanding, and emotion regulation, as in Mayer, Salovey, & Carusos
[2000], four-branch EI model). Doing so
reveals the critical importance of the emotion regulation facet as a mediator of
other EI facet effects on job performance.
Second, we demonstrate the vital role of
context in the EIjob performance relationship, illustrated by stronger EI criterion validity findings for high emotional
labor jobs.
EI, ESC, and Job Performance:
Meta-Analytic Evidence
of Discriminant and
Criterion Validity
In a recent meta-analysis relating EI to Big
Five personality, cognitive ability, and job
performance ( Joseph & Newman, 2010),
two varieties of EI were distinguished,
echoing Chernisss division between EI
as an aptitude (EI) and EI as a set of
related competencies or behaviors (ESC).
From this point on, we will refer to

159

160

D.A. Newman, D.L. Joseph, and C. MacCann

performance-based tests founded on the

four-branch ability model as EI and to
[usually self-report] rating scales based on
mixed-model definitions of EI as ESC.
The relationship between EI and ESC
is small but not trivial (rcorrected = .26;
Joseph & Newman, 2010; cf. Van Rooy,
Viswesvaran, & Pluta, 2005), suggesting the
two constructs are related but not the same.
Theoretically, such a result is consistent
with Chernisss proposed developmental
process where EI may support or enable the
development of emotional competencies
(ESCs). However, it is also consistent with
the converse idea that ESC may lead
to the development of EI (e.g., positive
emotional temperaments [ESC] lead to
more positive interactions with others
and hence more learning opportunities
to develop emotional abilities [EI; see
the developmental investment model of
Zeidner, Matthews, Roberts, & MacCann,
2003]). A dynamic process of reciprocal
EIESC causal influence is also plausible.
To the point, Chernisss distinction
between two different varieties of emotionrelated characteristics is a welcome clarification for the EI field. However, the idea
that the characteristic variously known as
trait EI, mixed-model EI, personality EI, and
now ESC constitutes a competence or set of
competencies (rather than, for example, a
personality trait or set of personality traits)
remains a testable and falsifiable hypothesis
(e.g., see de Raad, 2005; Joseph & Newman, in press).
Cherniss also reiterated the common proposal that EI is an ability concept, whereas
ESC is not (e.g., Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade,
2008). This proposal is supported by metaanalytic evidence (Joseph & Newman, in
press a), as EI shows a stronger relationship
with cognitive ability than does ESC (metaanalytic r = .22 vs. .09), and EI measures
are less redundant with Big Five personality
(multiple R = .34) than are ESC measures (multiple R = .68). The large overlap between ESC and personality implies
that rating-scale [self-report] mixed-model
assessments of EI (i.e., ESC) might be better

labeled as personality or temperament than

as a type of competency.
Next, regarding the EIjob performance relationship, the overall correlation
between strictly ability-based EI measures
and supervisor ratings of employee job
performance is r = .16. (The overall incremental validity of ability-based EI beyond
Big Five personality dimensions and cognitive ability for predicting job performance is
zero.) In contrast, the correlation between
ESC and job performance is a larger
r = .32, confirming Chernisss hypothesis
that certain ESC competencies should be
stronger predictors of certain outcomes than
EI (p. 123). As for explaining why ESC predicts job performance more strongly than EI
does on average, two explanations appear
most plausible: (a) ESC measures capture
achievement motivation and self-efficacy,
in addition to Big Five content; and (b) selfreport ESC measures include items that
reflect self-assessments of past performance,
and as such these ESC instruments can contaminate the emotional competence measure with their criterion. Despite the apparent criterion validity of ESC, we endorse the
contention (see Daus & Ashkanasy, 2005)
that ability-based EI measures (i.e., the
MayerSaloveyCaruso model) have far
greater construct validity than do ESC measures. That is, it is not entirely clear what mix
of constructs ESC measures are designed to
assess, and the definition of ESC as any
characteristic of the person that leads to or
causes effective or superior performance
(Boyatsis, 1982; cited in Cherniss, 2010) is
tautological. This state of affairs creates a
scientistpractitioner dilemma in choosing
whether to use EI versus ESC because ESC
measures have stronger criterion validity,
whereas EI measures have a much stronger
theoretical basis.
A Facet-Level Process Model
of EI and Job Performance:
The Cascading Model
Our proposal is to use the four-branch
hierarchical theory of Mayer, Salovey, and
Caruso (2000) as a more explicit theoretical

Emotional intelligence and job performance

basis to develop EI process models of job

performance. The common definition of EI
from Mayer et al. involves four branches
(i.e., emotion perception, emotion facilitation, emotion understanding, and emotion regulation), such that EI is defined
as four distinct constructs rather than one
single entity. In addition, the theory proposes a hierarchical structure among these
four branches, where abilities in the higher
branches depend or build upon abilities
in the lower branches. For example, an
accurate appraisal of a situations emotionrelevant dimensions may underlie effective emotion regulation strategies. In the
four-branch hierarchical model, perception underlies facilitation, which underlies
understanding, which underlies emotion
regulation such that emotion regulation
forms the apex of the model (Mayer,
Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2001). Given
the consensus in the scientific community that the MayerSaloveyCaruso fourbranch definition constitutes a workable
definition of EI (a consensus Cherniss
echoes), it is puzzling that much of the
discussion around EI in scientific and trade
texts refers to a single monolithic EI concept and has mostly ignored the proposed
hierarchical relationships between the EI
facets.
We believe an important step forward
for EI research and theory will be to recognize that the subfacets of EI have distinct locations in the nomological network.
Based on these ideas, Joseph and Newman (2010) proposed a theoretical model
of the causal relationships among EI facets,
personality, cognitive ability, and job performance. In this cascading model of EI,
shown in Figure 1, emotion perception predicts emotion understanding, which predicts emotion regulation, which in turn
predicts effective job performance. That is,
emotion understanding fully mediates the
relationship between emotion perception
and regulation, and emotion regulation fully
mediates the paths from other EI facets to
job performance. Emotion facilitation was
excluded from this model because of its
conceptual and empirical redundancy with

161

the other EI dimensions. Empirical support

for the cascading model (Figure 1) was
derived from several meta-analyses, confirming the proposed pattern of relationships
(for model fit indices and specific details of
the meta-analyses, see Joseph & Newman,
2010).
Given the known associations of job
performance with cognitive ability and
key personality variables (Barrick & Mount,
2000; Schmidt & Hunter, 2004), these
were also included in the cascading
model (Figure 1). In addition, Conscientiousness relates to emotion perception,
cognitive ability to emotion understanding, and Neuroticism to emotion regulation. These proposed relationships were
based on theory from the EI, emotions,
and coping literatures. For instance, Conscientious behavior requires the perception
of social norms, which can be obtained
from the accurate reading of others emotional cues (Matsumoto et al., 2000). Also,
emotion understanding is proposed to be
the most cognitively saturated of the EI
facets (Mayer et al., 2001). Finally, compared with emotionally stable individuals,
neurotic individuals use more ineffective
regulatory strategies such as emotionally
focused coping, withdrawal, and wishful
thinking; and use fewer effective strategies such as cognitive reappraisal (ConnorSmith & Flachsbart, 2007; Gross & John,
2003). In the cascading model, emotion
regulation fully mediates the effect of Neuroticism on job performance, meaning that
Neuroticism affects job performance only
through the process of emotion regulation.
In essence, Joseph and Newmans cascading model confirms that emotion regulation
is the active ingredient in EI, and it mediates the effects of the other EI facets (as well
as Neuroticism) on job performance (see
Figure 1).
This cascading model of EI has several
consequences for organizational research
on EI. First, it suggests that practitioners
interested in applications of EI might get
the biggest bang for their collective buck by
honing in on emotion regulation. Second,
the finding that emotion regulation is

162

D.A. Newman, D.L. Joseph, and C. MacCann

Figure 1. Cascading model of emotional intelligence based on Joseph and Newman

(2010). The dotted line (direct effect of Neuroticism on job performance) is not empirically
supportedthat is, emotional regulation fully mediates the effect of Neuroticism on job
performance.
the active ingredient in EI promises to
connect EI to a large and established
base of mainstream psychological theory
(e.g., Eisenberg, 2000; Gross, 1998). Third,
the development of psychometric tests
might most usefully concentrate on emotion
regulation rather than on the other three
dimensions of EI.
Regarding this third point (i.e., measurement of emotion regulation), several
new assessments of emotion regulation
are being developed in the format of
situational judgment tests (SJTs). Early SJT
results show promising preliminary evidence for construct validity, such as
relationships with life satisfaction, academic performance, and less stress, anxiety,
and depression (Freudenthaler & Neubauer,
2007; MacCann & Roberts, 2008). In continuation of this work, MacCann, Roberts,
and colleagues have noted that written
SJT vignettes may be contaminated with
reading comprehension as a source of
construct-irrelevant variance. They have
hence developed video-based measures of
emotion regulation and emotion understanding (Orchard et al., 2009; Roberts,
MacCann, Matthews, & Zeidner, in press)
with promising initial results (i.e., reliability,

large correlations with the written SJT measure and cognitive ability). Finally, we note
here that existing SJT measures of emotion
regulation focus primarily on the effective down regulation of negative emotion
rather than on the effective up regulation
of positive emotion. It may, therefore, be
useful for future measures to include situational stimuli that require the effective
display of positive emotion. Early research
by Grandey (2003) and Beal, Trougakos,
Weiss, and Green (2006) may be instructive
in conceptualizing such new measures.
Emotional Labor: A Key
Contextual Moderator
In tracing the relationship between EI
and job performance, Cherniss entreats
researchers to pay more attention to
context. Wong and Law (2002) highlighted
emotional labor as an important contextual
variable, demonstrating that EI predicted
job performance ratings more strongly in
high emotional labor jobs. Emotional labor
has been defined as the degree to which
workers are expected to express positive
emotion as part of the job (Grandey, 2003).
Joseph and Newman (2010) reconfirmed
Wong and Laws results via meta-analysis,
showing that emotional labor moderated

Emotional intelligence and job performance

the EIjob performance and ESCjob

performance relationships (we note that,
whereas Wong and Law defined emotional
labor to include hiding negative emotions,
Joseph and Newman defined emotional
labor as whether the job requires displaying
positive emotions). In the meta-analysis,
EI predicted job performance in high
emotional labor jobs (r = .22) but showed
no relationship to job performance for
low emotional labor jobs (r = .00). Further,
the incremental validity coefficient for EI
(controlling Big Five and cognitive ability)
was positive for high emotional labor jobs
but negative for low emotional labor jobs,
meaning that the use of EI measures to
select applicants into low emotional labor
jobs may actually harm job performance.
EI facet-level results (i.e., distinguishing
emotion regulation from the other EI
facets) reaffirmed this conclusion, showing
that emotion regulation positively predicts
performance only for jobs that require
positive emotional displays. These findings
further emphasize Chernisss notion of the
importance of considering context in the
study of EI.
Summary
We have highlighted four points regarding research and practice on the EI construct. First, new meta-analytic data show
that EI predicts supervisor-rated job performance, but overall incremental validity is
nil. Second, ESC measures are empirically
distinct from EI, they overlap greatly with
Big Five personality, and they may predict job performance more strongly than EI,
which creates a sciencepractice dilemma
between good construct specification (EI)
versus maximal criterion validity (ESC).
Third, the EI facets of emotion perception, emotion understanding, and emotion
regulation relate differentially to job performance, cognitive ability, and personality, such that they fit a cascading pattern
in which emotion regulation is the last
step preceding job performance. We therefore recommend organizational researchers
and practitioners focus more on emotion

163

regulation mechanisms and measurement.

Fourth, meta-analytic data suggest EI positively predicts job performance in high
emotional labor settings (but not in low
emotional labor settings) when emotional
labor is defined as role-prescribed up regulation of positive emotion.
References
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2000). Select on
conscientiousness and emotional stability. In
E. A. Locke (Ed.), The Blackwell Handbook of
principles of organizational behavior (pp. 1528).
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Beal, D. J., Trougakos, J., Weiss, H. M., & Green, S.
(2006). Episodic processes in emotional labor:
Perceptions of affective delivery and regulation
strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology , 91,
10531065.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager: A
model for effective performance. New York: John
Wiley and Sons.
Cherniss, C. (2010). Emotional intelligence: Toward
clarification of a concept. Industrial and Organizational Psychology , 3, 110126.
Connor-Smith, J. K., & Flachsbart, C. S. (2007). Relations between personality and coping: A metaanalysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 6, 10801107.
Daus, C. S., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2005). The case for
an ability-based model of emotional intelligence in
organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational
Behavior , 26, 453466.
de Raad, B. (2005). The trait-coverage of emotional
intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 673687.
Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral
development. Annual Review of Psychology , 51,
665697.
Freudenthaler, H. H., & Neubauer, A. C. (2007). Measuring emotion management abilities: Further evidence of the importance to distinguish between
typical and maximum performance. Personality
and Individual Differences, 42, 15611572.
Grandey, A. (2003). When the show must go on:
Surface and deep acting as predictors of emotional
exhaustion and service delivery. Academy of
Management Journal , 46, 8696.
Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion
regulation: An integrative review. Review of
General Psychology , 2, 271299.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. (2003). Individual differences
in two emotion regulation processes: Implications
for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology , 85, 348362.
Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional
intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and
cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology ,
95, 5478.
Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Discriminant
validity of self-reported emotional intelligence:
A multitrait-multisource study. Educational and
Psychological Measurement . (DOI 10.1177/
0013164409355700).

164
MacCann, C., & Roberts, R. D. (2008). Assessing
emotional intelligence with situational judgment
test paradigms: Theory and data. Emotion, 8,
540551.
Matsumoto, D., LeRoux, J., Wilson-Cohn, W.,
Raroque, J., Kooken, K., Ekman, P., et al. (2000).
A new test to measure emotion recognition ability:
Matsumoto and Ekmans Japanese and Caucasian
brief affect recognition test (JACBART). Journal of
Nonverbal Behavior , 24, 179209.
Mayer, J. D., Roberts R. D., & Barsade, S. G. (2008).
Human abilities: Emotional intelligence. Annual
Review of Psychology , 59, 507536.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000).
Models of emotional intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg
(Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 392420).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., &
Sitarenios, G. (2001). Emotional intelligence as a
standard intelligence. Emotion, 1, 232242.
Orchard, B., MacCann, C., Schulze, R., Matthews, G.,
Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2009). New directions and alternative approaches to the measurement of emotional intelligence. In C. Stough,

D.A. Newman, D.L. Joseph, and C. MacCann

D. H. Saklofske, & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), Assessing
emotional intelligence: Theory, research, and
applications (pp. 321340). New York: Springer.
Roberts, R. D., MacCann, C., Matthews, G., &
Zeidner, M. (in press). Emotional intelligence:
Towards a consensus of models, measures, and
applications. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. (2004). General mental
ability in the world of work: Occupational
attainment and job performance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology , 86, 162173.
Van Rooy, D. L., Viswesvaran, C., & Pluta, P. (2005).
An evaluation of construct validity: What is
this thing called emotional intelligence? Human
Performance, 18, 445462.
Wong, C., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader
and follower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study.
The Leadership Quarterly , 13, 243274.
Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., Roberts, R. D., &
MacCann, C. (2003). Development of emotional
intelligence: Toward a multi-level investment
model. Human Development , 46, 6996.

Copyright of Industrial & Organizational Psychology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.