The Role of Emotional Intelligence in Social Adaptation, Leadership Performance and Measures of Success among Israeli Naval Cadets

Dr. Shlomo Cameo

Abstract

Since the early 1990s, with the first published framework referring to emotional intelligence (EI) as a distinct construct (Salovey & Mayer, 1990; Salovey, Hsee, & Mayer, 1993), there has been an emergent understanding that processing emotional information and managing emotional dynamics intelligently play an essential role in the effective navigation of the social world. Since then, a large number of studies have suggested that EI plays a role in shaping behavior in different social contexts. More specifically, many studies indicate that EI is positively associated with success in the workplace, academic achievements, social adaptation, leadership abilities, and interpersonal interactions, and is negatively associated with antisocial behaviors. Along with this growing evidence, there also have emerged controversies about the validity of various models of EI and the proper way to measure it. The criticism of research on emotional intelligence has included (a) the use of self-report measures, which have been found to be weak predictors of aspects of the real world, (b) disregarding an overlap of emotional intelligence with other constructs (e.g., intelligence and personality), thus failing to isolate EI’s distinct contribution above and beyond such constructs, (c) ignoring the possibility of the moderating effect of contextual variables such as motivation, which may affect EI’s contribution to performance, and (d) conducting laboratory studies that do not reflect relevant aspects of real-life settings’ complexity, and thus lack ecological validity. The present study aimed to examine EI’s role in social adaptation, leadership performance, and measures of success, in a setting which avoids many of the problems mentioned above. The research was conducted in the Israeli Naval Academy, examining the EI of candidates and cadets aspiring to be officers in the Israeli Navy, during their screening and training stages. This arena provided the opportunity to explore the role of EI in a real-life setting while controlling for other constructs, i.e., personality and general intelligence, which were measured as part of the process. In addition, the participants were highly motivated to succeed, and their success in several aspects was assessed by various measures at the two stages. The study employed the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) V2.0, considered the most reliable and valid EI ability test. Overall, this research arena provides an opportunity to overcome many of the weaknesses in some of the previous research, noted above. Data of 649 male participants, mean age 17.5 years through 21.5, candidates and cadets of the Israeli Naval Academy, were collected during an average period of three years, through two stages: a standard prescreening and screening process and the officers’ training course. Measuring EI was conducted along with the routine testing and did not affect any decisions regarding candidates and cadets. As the measure of EI, the official Hebrew translation of the MSCEIT was used. This, to the best of my knowledge, was the first time an EI test was used to assess Israeli naval candidates or cadets. Besides the MSCEIT, participants were administered a military test of general intelligence and a test of the five personality traits—tests routinely used by the Army in evaluating draftees for different positions in their military service. This enabled assessing the contribution of EI to the research variables, above and beyond the contributions of general intelligence and personality. Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) EI framework is considered to be the most theoretically sound one and which is likewise praised by many researchers for its advanced measuring tool, the MSCEIT. The present study is based on that framework and uses that measuring tool. According to Mayer and Salovey (1997), EI is comprised of four branches of mental abilities: (a) Perceiving emotions—the ability to perceive and identify emotions in oneself and in others; (b) Using emotions to facilitate thought—the ability to use emotions to focus attention and to think more rationally, logically, and creatively; (c) Understanding emotions—the ability to understand complex emotions; the emotional lexicon; and the way emotions combine, progress, and transition from one to another; and (d) Managing emotions—the ability to regulate moods and emotions in oneself and in other people. These four branches of mental abilities and overall EI are believed to affect individuals’ achievements and performance in varied domains, three of which are examined in this study. Based on this framework and previous research, it was hypothesized that overall EI and each of the four branches composing it, would be positively and significantly associated with candidates’ and cadets’ performance in three domains: social adaptation, leadership, and measures of success (Hypotheses 1-3). It was also hypothesized that EI would be significantly higher among screening-stage candidates who qualified for the course than those who were disqualified, and among training-course cadets who qualified as officers than those who did not (Hypotheses 4-5). In addition, it was hypothesized that EI would contribute positively and significantly to the variables under study, above and beyond the contribution of general intelligence and personality traits (Hypotheses 6-7). Hypotheses 1-3 were partially confirmed: the associations between overall EI and the each of its branches with social adaptation, leadership performance, and measures of success, showed some positive significant correlations, although these were mostly weak. For Hypotheses 4-5, contrary to expectations, no significant differences were found in EI mean scores, neither between qualified and disqualified candidates in the screening stage nor for cadets in the course. However, for Hypotheses 6-7, EI was found to contribute significantly to the prediction of social adaptation above and beyond general intelligence and personality traits but failed to predict leadership performance and measures of success. These results may be explained in reference to the involvement of two contextual factors, both associated with characteristics of the participants: their IQs and their motivation. The participants having initially been screened on their IQ scores, resulted in a limited variability, due to the restricted range of relatively high IQ scores in the sample. This lowers the predictive value of EI due to the resulting restricted association between the variables involved (Sackett & Yang, 2000). Further, as demonstrated by Côté and Miners (2006), EI has a lower predictive power regarding the performance of people with high IQ scores. The participants’ high motivation may also have contributed negatively to EI’s ability to predict the variables. As with IQ, the participants’ high motivation may have restricted the ability of EI to impact performance due to motivation serving as a potent compensatory factor enabling participants to invest their best efforts regardless of EI as an element of influence. This study’s population being both highly intelligent and highly motivated apparently impaired the attempt to identify the actual contribution of EI. Such being the case, the context in which EI is measured emerges as a salient factor when testing EI’s ability to predict different aspects of performance and success. Future research using a less restricted sample in a similar setting may further assess the interplay between EI, IQ and motivation in predicting the variables of interest.