Emotional and Social Competency Inventory: Research Guide and Technical Manual

Emotional and social
competency inventory
R ES E AR C H G UI D E A N D TECHNICAL MANUAL
Emotional and social competency inventory
Research guide and technical manual
This document contains proprietary business information of

Korn Ferry and may be used by our clients solely for their internal
purposes. No part of this work may be copied or transferred to any
other expression or form without a license from Korn Ferry. This
document should not be shared with other organizations, consultants,
or vendors without the express written permission of Korn Ferry.
For the sake of linguistic simplicity in this product, where the

masculine form is used, the feminine form should always be
understood to be included.
Korn Ferry 2017. All rights reserved.
www.kornferry.com
ESCI Research guide and technical manual

Version 17.1a04/2017
Emotional intelligence is the
capacity for recognizing our
own and others feelings and for
managing emotions effectively,
including motivating ourselves
and others.
Emotional and Social Competency Inventory Research guide and technical manual
Introduction
This research guide and technical manual provides a detailed technical description of the Emotional
and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI). Developed by Richard Boyatzis, Daniel Goleman, and
Korn Ferry Hay Group, the ESCI is used to assess and develop leaders and individual contributors
emotional and social intelligence competencies.
The manual introduces the ESCI model and competencies, provides guidance on its use, and delves
deeply into its psychometric-based properties, including the recent review of the ESCI database and
norm update.
It also summarizes a number of empirical studies conducted by Richard Boyatzis, Korn Ferry Hay
Group, and many other researchers that validate the ESCI and the behavioral measurement of
emotional and social intelligence.
Richard Boyatzis
Distinguished professor of organizational behavior at the Weatherhead
School of Management at Case Western Reserve University
Boyatzis partnership with Korn Ferry Hay Group resulted in a validated

behavioral measure of emotional intelligence. His research explores how
people and organizations engage in sustainable, desired change, and his
publications include Primal Leadership: Learning to Lead with Emotional
Intelligence with Daniel Goleman and Annie McKee.
Daniel Goleman
Co-Director of the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in
Organizations
In Working with Emotional Intelligence, Goleman presented studies of the

competencies that distinguish outstanding performers in a large range of
organizations, resulting in the development of the ESCI. He co-founded
the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations,
catalyzing research on the contribution of EI to workplace effectiveness.
Contributors
Richard Boyatzis, Distinguished Professor of Organizational Behavior,
Case Western Reserve University
Samantha Guise, Technical Author, Korn Ferry Hay Group
Sarah Hezlett, Senior Assessment Scientist, Korn Ferry Institute
Paula Kerr, Senior Manager, Korn Ferry Institute
Stephen Lams, Talent Product Manager, Korn Ferry Hay Group
Korn Ferry 2017. All rights reserved. i

Summary
Why EI continues to make a difference

When emotional intelligence (EI) became part of our everyday language in the 1990s, two
decades of research had already established the significance of competencies. Derived from
studies of performance, and using self and others perceptions, competencies demonstrated
strong relationships to important workplace outcomes. Richard Boyatzis and Dan Golemans work
focused on a specific group of competencies that were showing strong relationships to outstanding
performance for leaders and individual contributors: the emotional and social intelligence (SI)
competencies.
Since then, interest in and measurement of EI has grown globally. Korn Ferry Hay Groups ongoing
development work with Boyatzis and Goleman has resulted in the Emotional and Social Competency
Inventory (ESCI), a validated measure of emotional and social intelligence and an extensive source
of behavioral data. It is used by business organizations, education institutions, researchers, and
independent consultants and coaches.
Since our last review in 2010, the ESCI database has grown from 4,000 to nearly 80,000 participants,
from 42,000 to nearly 700,000 non-self raters, and from 270 to over 2,200 organizations. Based on
this growth, Korn Ferry Hay Group has updated the ESCI global norms, reviewed its psychometric-
based properties, and gathered the most recent research so that practitioners can share the most
current findings.
What this manual covers

This research guide and technical manual presents an update on the ESCIs psychometric-based
properties and a summary of recent research studies and findings. It includes:
Reliability data: A reassessment of the ESCIs internal consistency with a much larger and more
diverse sample, as well as interrater estimates.
Validity data: Summaries of validity studies carried out with the ESCI or ESCI-U (the education/
university version). These include Korn Ferry Hay Groups review of ESCI data alongside our other
measures of leadership and employee effectiveness and several independent research studies
carried out with participants in a range of roles and organizations.
Effect size data: A more practical alternative to norm tables, providing the opportunity to
quantify and explore differences between participant groups by region, country, age, gender,
job family, job level, and industry. These data also explore interesting differences between
participants self scores and rater scores, reinforcing the importance of gathering 360-degree
behavioral data.
The manual includes a full introduction to the ESCI model and its 12 competencies and how they
are measured, scored, and reported. It describes the development of the ESCI and ESCI-U. It
also provides ESCI practitioners with guidance on how to use the ESCI and ESCI-U to deliver
meaningful feedback that equips leaders, employees, and students to develop their capabilities in the
competencies that can make the biggest difference to their own and others overall performance.
ii Korn Ferry 2017. All rights reserved.

What the 2016 ESCI data reveal

Our own review of ESCI data in relation to other key behavioral data, alongside the independent ESCI
studies, has reinforced the central role that emotional and social intelligence competencies play in
employee and leadership performance.
EI supports employee and leadership performance

Independent studies continue to spotlight emotional and social intelligence competencies as
differentiators of outstanding performance across a range of roles. They confirm that 360-degree
behavioral measures, such as the ESCI, are valuable predictors of performance.
Emotional self-awareness remains the cornerstone of EI

Confirmed as a solid foundation for a range of capabilities, individuals who demonstrate Emotional
self-awareness consistently are also likely to:
Demonstrate an average of 10 ESCI competencies consistently (ESCI strengths).
Make frequent use of four long-term leadership styles that have the most positive impact on their
teams work climate and performance. (See Does EI strengthen a leaders approach? in Section
3.5.1.)
Create the most positive work climates for their team members.
EI as a key predictor of leadership effectiveness

A number of ESCI competencies are emerging as predictors of leadership effectiveness:
Leaders with high scores in Conflict management are likely to make frequent use of four long-
term leadership styles and restrain their use of the two short-term styles, consequently creating
the most positive climates and having team members who intend to stay five years or longer.
Inspirational leadership and Empathy follow close behind in their positive relationships with
long-term leadership styles, team climate, and employee retention.
EI as a key predictor of employee effectiveness, engagement, and innovation

Higher ESCI competency scores relate to increased employee effectiveness scores across all drivers
of employee engagement and enablement:
Demonstrating six or more ESCI competencies consistently can equip a leader to make frequent
use of the long-term leadership styles, create a positive team climate, and encourage a majority
of team members to stay five years or longer.
Demonstrating three or fewer ESCI strengths relates to below average leadership strength and a
majority of team members planning to leave within five years.
Demonstrating no ESCI strengths typically results in bottom quartile leadership strength and over
10% of team members planning to leave within just one year.
Korn Ferry 2017. All rights reserved. iii

Contents
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................... i
1. Assessing emotional and social intelligence competencies................................................................... 1

1.1 What is emotional and social intelligence?................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Measuring emotional and social intelligence........................................................................................... 1
1.3 The ESCI model.................................................................................................................................................. 2
1.4 The competencies measured by the ESCI............................................................................................... 3
1.5 The ESCI-U............................................................................................................................................................4
1.6 How ESCI data are gathered.........................................................................................................................4
1.7 How the ESCI is scored.................................................................................................................................... 5
2. Delivering ESCI feedback.................................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Using the ESCI and ESCI-U............................................................................................................................. 7
2.2 Sharing ESCI feedback....................................................................................................................................9
2.3 The ESCI feedback report............................................................................................................................ 10
2.4 The ESCI group report....................................................................................................................................11
3. The scientific foundation for the ESCI..........................................................................................................13

3.1 The development of the ESCI.......................................................................................................................13
3.2 The 2016 review................................................................................................................................................18
3.3 Reliability.............................................................................................................................................................21
3.4 Model fit..............................................................................................................................................................23
3.5 Criterion validity............................................................................................................................................. 24
3.6 Criterion validity studies using the ECI or ECI-U............................................................................... 43
4. Developing EI and SI............................................................................................................................................51
5. Differences in EI and SI scores by key demographic variables.........................................................53
6. References...............................................................................................................................................................77
7. Appendix A. ESCI: Behavioral level of Emotional and Social Intelligence.....................................81
Korn Ferry 2017. All rights reserved. v

1. Assessing emotional and social intelligence competencies
The focus of behavioral EI is competencies. Identified from studies of

performance, and subject to performance-based criteria, emotional and
social intelligence competencies are closely related to work and life
outcomes.
1.1 What is emotional and social intelligence?

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
and social competency is a learned capacity, based on emotional intelligence, which contributes to
effective performance at work.
1.2 Measuring emotional and social intelligence

The Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI) is a 360-degree survey designed to assess 12
competencies that differentiate outstanding from average performance at work. The ESCI measures
the demonstration of individuals behaviors through their perceptions and those of their raters,
making it distinct from measures of EI that assess ability, self-assessments of ability, or personality
preferences. Appendix A describes in more detail how the ESCI stands out conceptually from other
approaches to measuring emotional and social intelligence.
We find that most of the characteristics that differentiate outstanding performers are these things

that we call social and emotional competencies.
Richard Boyatzis Distinguished Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Weatherhead School of Management at Case
Western Reserve University
Korn Ferry 2017. All rights reserved. 1

1.3 The ESCI model

The 12 competencies cover four distinct areas of emotional and social intelligence as developed and
documented by Richard Boyatzis and Daniel Goleman since 1996.
Figure 1. The ESCI model
SELF OTHERS
AWARENESS
Self- Social
awareness awareness
ACTIONS
Self- Relationship
management management Performance
2 Korn Ferry 2017. All rights reserved.

1.4 The competencies measured by the ESCI

Each competency is carefully defined so that it is distinct from the others, easy to comprehend, and
properly summarizes its behavioral indicators. Listed below are the definitions of each cluster in the
model and the competencies within it:
Self-awareness
Recognizing and understanding our own emotions, captured in the competency:
Emotional self-awareness: The ability to understand our own emotions and their effects on our
performance.
Self-management
Effectively managing our own emotions:
Emotional self-control: The ability to keep disruptive emotions and impulses in check and
maintain our effectiveness under stressful or hostile conditions.
Achievement orientation: Striving to meet or exceed a standard of excellence; looking for ways
to do things better, set challenging goals and take calculated risks.
Positive outlook: The ability to see the positive in people, situations and events and our
persistence in pursuing goals despite obstacles and setbacks.
Adaptability: Flexibility in handling change, juggling multiple demands and adapting our ideas or
approaches.
Social awareness
Recognizing and understanding the emotions of others:
Empathy: The ability to sense others feelings and perspectives, taking an active interest in their
concerns and picking up cues to what is being felt and thought.
Organizational awareness: The ability to read a groups emotional currents and power
relationships, identifying influencers, networks and dynamics.
Relationship management
Applying emotional understanding in our dealings with others:
Influence: The ability to have a positive impact on others, persuading or convincing others in
order to gain their support.
Coach and mentor: The ability to foster the long-term learning or development of others by
giving feedback and support.
Conflict management: The ability to help others through emotional or tense situations, tactfully
bringing disagreements into the open and finding solutions all can endorse.
Inspirational leadership: The ability to inspire and guide individuals and groups to get the job
done, and to bring out the best in others.
Teamwork: The ability to work with others toward a shared goal; participating actively, sharing
responsibility and rewards and contributing to the capability of the team.

1.5 The ESCI-U

Students emotional and social competencies are measured using the ESCI-U, the education/
university version of the ESCI.
Two additional competencies cover areas of cognitive ability relevant to the performance of students
in further and higher education: Systems thinking and Pattern recognition.
1.6 How ESCI data are gathered
A 360-degree perspective
The ESCI is primarily used to gather 360-degree feedback data. Participants can choose to receive
feedback from five groups of raters: their manager, team members, peers, clients/customers, and
others. This provides participants with a range of perspectives on their behaviors.
Use of self-assessment scores

Self-assessment data alone may be useful as the basis for developmental discussion, but they
do not provide valid and reliable measures of emotionally and socially intelligent behavior. The
2016 data confirm that individuals who score low in Emotional self-awareness are more likely to
significantly overrate themselves in other competencies (average Cohens d of 1.02), while those
scoring high in Emotional self-awareness are more likely to moderately underrate themselves
(average Cohens d of -0.55).
Using valid data

When using the ESCI, it is important to recognize that not all of the data collected may be usable.
When the instrument is scored by Korn Ferry Hay Group, we discard data from a rater if the number
of don't know responses exceeds 25%, indicating that the rater does not have enough information
to accurately assess the participant. We therefore recommend that participants choose raters with
whom they work on a regular basis, or who know them well.
To preserve raters confidentiality, we also insist on a minimum of two raters in each rating category
(with the exception of the participants manager, where a single rater is permitted). If there is only
one rater in a category, we do not include that category of rater in the final scores. Rater categories
can also be combined to preserve confidentiality, if appropriate.
Finally, securing an accurate assessment of a participants emotional intelligence requires multiple

raters. Each rater observes different aspects of the participant, which means that any one individual's
perspective may be partial or skewed. We recommend a minimum of four to five raters, preferably
with different perspectives of the participant drawn from different contexts.

1.7 How the ESCI is scored
What does a competency score represent?

ESCI data are scored against a frequency range. Scores indicate how characteristic a behavior is for
an individual. Raters are asked to assess how consistently an individual demonstrates the behavior
described by each item on a five-point scale ranging as follows:
Never Rarely Sometimes Often Consistently
Each rater perspective is weighted equally. Scores are averaged across the relevant rater group (i.e.,
team members, peers, etc.). The total others score for each competency is the average across all
rater groups (except self ratings). Raters surveys are accepted if they provide responses to 75% of
the survey items.
An ESCI competency is considered to be a strength when the total others scorethe average of all
raters scoresis 4.3 or higher, meaning that the behavior is observed consistently.
Raters are asked how well they know the performance of the person for whom they are providing
feedback. Responses, in a range from Not at all well to Extremely well are gathered for each
rater group and reported as a percentage. This helps the participant make sense of their feedback
in context: the higher the familiarity level, the more significant their raters feedback is for them. If a
rater responds Not at all well, that raters survey responses are automatically rejected.
The level of rater agreement for rater groups with two or more raters is also reported as a
percentage. The more consistent the scores within a rater group, the higher the agreement.
Agreement level is determined from the difference between the highest and lowest raters scores as
a percentage of the range of possible scores. Agreement can be low for a number of reasons. It may
indicate that some raters are less familiar with a participant than others, or that raters interact with
the participant in different situations and observe different behaviors.
The ESCI report allows participants to benchmark their scores against the norm group. The scores of
participants at the 25th and 75th percentiles are shown for each competency in the feedback report.
Providing rater group choices and scores from the norm group presents participants with a broad
perspective of how they are behaving across their work situations, as perceived by the different
individuals and groups with whom they interact.

2. Delivering ESCI feedback
The ESCI shows participants how others experience their behavior in

terms of the consistency with which they demonstrate emotional and
social competencies. It helps participants appreciate their strengths,
recognize how consistently they do certain things, and identify what
they can do to be even more effective.
ESCI feedback can only be delivered by certified practitioners. For information on ESCI certification,
contact your account manager. Use of the ESCI-U does not require certification.
The ESCI certification program helps practitioners gain a thorough understanding of the assessment
and the feedback report and to experience and follow best practice in delivering ESCI data. The
following is a summarymore detail is provided in the ESCI certification program materials.
2.1 Using the ESCI and ESCI-U

The ESCI and ESCI-U are used by practitioners for assessment and development and by researchers
for studying the role of emotional intelligence in learning and performance. ESCI feedback can
benefit individuals and groups in different roles and in a range of contexts.
In organizations
At a group level, the ESCI can provide valuable data about human resource capability in business, not-
for-profit, and public sector organizations. It is used to establish workforce strengths and development
needs. Repeat use of the ESCI (e.g., retesting every year or so) enables organizations to respond
quickly to capability issues and provides a summary of the condition of their human capital.
At an individual level, the ESCIoften combined with coachingcan help leaders and key contributors
determine what outstanding performance means for them within their role and decide which
competencies they want to work on.
The ESCI is not intended for use in HR resource management activities: selection, promotion, salary
decisions, etc. Each competency measured by the ESCI may or may not be relevant to a specific
job; therefore, it is inappropriate to use for resource decisions without first validating it against
the performance requirements for that job. In addition, 360-degree assessment processes can be
problematic when ratersparticipants and othersknow that the data will be used to inform resource
decisions.
The ESCI is best suited to development. The range of competencies that it measures is broad, providing
feedback that participants can interpret in terms of their work context and their wider view of their
own personal characteristics.
Korn Ferry Hay Group offers an extensive range of products and services to support the development
of EI capabilities, including structured individual and leadership development training programs,
workbooks, e-learning, and the new, self-directed FYI for your improvement: Emotional Intelligence
development guide. Please contact an account manager for the latest information on our offerings.
The rules for work are changing. Were being judged by a new yardstick: not just by how smart we are,

but by how we handle ourselves and each other.
Daniel Goleman Working with Emotional Intelligence (p. 3, 1998)

In education
Students competencies are measured using the ESCI-U, the education/university version of the ESCI.
This assessment is widely used in colleges and universities by educators who see EI competencies
as the building blocks of students capacity to understand and work with others, understand
and motivate themselves, and learn effectively. Some institutions use the ESCI-U as an outcome
assessment across their student population to determine what their students are learning. This is
useful in program improvements and accreditation reviews. Others use it to help students become
more self-aware and engaged learners and to help teaching staff respond more effectively to their
students needs.
In research
We welcome research proposals from those using the ESCI. If your proposal meets our criteria, you
will be offered access to our self-serve website for data collection. In return, we ask that you provide
us with a copy of your research data and results.
Choosing the right instrument for the situation

Our ESCI and ESCI-U instruments are available for use with specific participants in specific types of
organizations:
Table 1. ESCI and ESCI-U
ESCI ESCI-U
Purpose For use in business organizations For use in universities, colleges,
(public and private). schools (with post-16 students).
Participants Leaders, managers, professionals, Pre- or post-graduate students

and individual contributors. with limited work experience.
Competencies The 12 emotional and social The 12 emotional and social

intelligence competencies. intelligence competencies, plus two
cognitive competencies: Systems
thinking and Pattern recognition.
Benchmarking Extensive global norm group Not benchmarked.

across roles and industries.
Rater and feedback Data gathered from and reported Data gathered from and reported
choices across five rater categories: across two rater categories: self
manager, team member, peer, and others (i.e., no subdivision of
client/customer, other. other raters).
Certification Certification is required to provide Certification is not required to use

ESCI feedback. the ESCI-U.
Delivery Online: self-service and full service. Online self-service, and paper-
based.
Languages (determined The ESCI survey, feedback report, Translation of the ESCI-U survey
by demand) and group report are currently and feedback report into the
available in 39 languages. same languages as the ESCI is in
progress.

2.2 Sharing ESCI feedback

Certified practitioners are encouraged to use the following coaching framework when sharing ESCI
feedback:
Introducing the process: The participant and coach discuss how they will work together and contract
on important issues, e.g., confidentiality.
Setting the context: A discussion about the participants role, current challenges, and career and life
aspirations so that both understand what the participant hopes to gain from the feedback process.
Explaining EI: The coach supports the participants understanding of EI and the ESCI model.
Encouraging self-assessment: A discussion of the participants view of their own strengths and
development needs. The coach assesses the participants self-awareness and identifies any potential
blind spots.
Explaining the ESCI report: An explanation of the ESCI assessment and report format. A discussion
about the people whom the participant approached for feedback and the participants relationship
with them.
Exploring the data: The coach helps the participant make sense of their feedback data in relation to
the participants perceptions of their personal characteristics, the demands of their work contexts,
and the priorities of their roles. Discussing a participants ESCI feedback involves open exploration
and the testing of any hypotheses that the coach has formed when reviewing the data, in particular:
Any areas of surprise or concern at the summary level.
Any gaps between the participants self-assessment and raters perceptions (total others).
Any patterns surfacing in the responses of the different rater groups.
The potential reasons for different perceptions.
Any areas of detail that the participant wants to explore or that are critical to their role.

2.3 The ESCI feedback report

The ESCI feedback report provides an overview of the emotional and social competency model and
detailed descriptions of each competency.
It helps participants make sense of their feedback and form a judgment about its validity for them,
based on their raters familiarity with their behavior and the level of agreement between their raters.
It presents feedback data in a number of ways to support participants understanding of how they
demonstrate their emotional and social competencies:
Competency profile: A summary of self and total others scores for each competency.
Competency detail: Detailed competency scores, by rater group, with competency definitions.
Item detail: A distribution of ratings, by rater group, for each ESCI item.
Verbatim comments: Feedback, as written by raters, about a participants behavior and

performance.
Lee | Report generated on 10/4/2016 Lee | Report generated on 10/4/2016
ESCI competency profile ESCI item detail
The ESCI competency profile provides a summary of how all your raters observe you using the competencies. You can compare The following tables show how your raters responded to each questionnaire item. It indicates, item by item, where raters'
their perception with your self perception. perceptions of your behavior agree or differ.
Feedback report The bars on the 'Average rating' column represent the average item score for each rater group. The distribution of ratings,
with a column for each point on the rating scale, are shown to the right of the bars. The number in each column indicates
ESCI
Competencies Consistency of demonstration Total others the number of raters who rated you on that point. The left most column labeled with a * indicates the number of raters who
did not answer the question.
Never Sometimes Consistently
Rarely Often Self-Awareness cluster Emotional Self-Awareness
Self-Awareness Never - Consistently
# ITEM Rater group Average rating *

Emotional Self-Awareness 3.9
34 Able to describe how own feelings affect own Self 4.0 1
Emotional and Social Competency Inventory Self-Management
actions
Manager 4.0 1
People you lead 4.0 4
Name: Lee Achievement Orientation 3.2
Peers 3.8 1 3
Client: Sample Client Adaptability 2.7 39 Describes underlying reasons for own feelings Self 1
4.0
Emotional Self-Control 4.1 Manager 4.0 1

Date of report: 1/31/2016 People you lead 2 1 1
3.8
Positive Outlook 3.9
Peers 4.3 1 1 2
Social Awareness 41 Aware of the connection between what is Self 4.0 1

happening and own feelings
Empathy Manager 2.0 1
4.4
People you lead 3.8 2 1 1
Organizational Awareness 3.5
Peers 4.3 3 1
44 Shows awareness of own feelings Self 4.0 1
Relationship Management
Manager 4.0 1
Conflict Management 3.2
Lee | Report Lee | Report
People you lead 4.5 2 2
genera
Coach and
ted Mentor 4.4 genera ted on 10/4/2
on 10/4/2 016 Peers 016 4.3 3 1
Influence 3.2 48 Does not describe own feelings Self 4.0 1
ESCI com Verbatim
petency det
Inspirational Leadership 3.5 com ments
Manager 4.0 1
ail People you lead 3.8 1 1 2
The ESCI Teamwork 4.8
comp Strengths Peers 1 3
your self perce etency detail provi 4.3
ption and des score
the norm s by rater
group
Total others group. You
Self Norm group
. can comp Reversed item
are the perce Indicates that some of your assessors did not respond to this item
ptions of each *
of your rater Self
Self-Awarene groups with I take the
ss time to unde
accomplishm rstand and
Emotiona ents. I am address empl
l Self-Awa I can. Mora sincerely oyee conce
reness le is really interested
in the deve rns. I also
look for oppo
good in my lopment of
departmen my people. rtunities to
t and turno I am alway celebrate
Recognizin ver very low. s willing to events and
g how our Manager help them
performan emotions Continued in any way
ce. People affect our Lee is a real
competenc who demo people perso
2016 Richard Boyatzis, Daniel Goleman, and Korn Ferry. All rights reserved y know the nstrate colleagues n, has creat
what they' signals rights reservedthis 7
with respe
ct, and alway
ed a pleas
ant work envir 14
2016 Richard Boyatzis, Danielre
feeling, andFerry. All that
Goleman, and Korn tell them appro
2016 Richard Boyatzis, Daniel Goleman, and Korn Ferry. All rights reserved
aching Lee s maintains onment and
ongoing guide use them them throu with probl self control gets on well
to how they as an Consistently gh any issue ems, and - even
3.9 team issue in difficult with the team
are doing 4.0 team. Lee s they have s are dealt situations. . Lee treats
. 4.0 is effective . Lee work with quick Team mem
3.5 4.1 Often at day to day s well in difficu ly. Lee is good bers feel comf
manageme lt situations, at developin ortable
nt, and mana and is very g the team
Sometimes ges well with quick , and guidi
People you
lead a large numb to spot potential issue ng
Great ment er of repor s in the
Rarely or & coach ts.
Total Others a very unde
rstanding/
Self
Manager Never compassio
People you nate leade
lead
Peers Peers r.
Lee is a very
caring and
to keep every understan
one in the ding mana
team happ ger with a
y and will great capac
Lee has trans often put ity to get on
formed HR''s others first. with peop
manager recruitmen le. Lee goes
- it just ran t activities. to great lengt
worked hard it''s proce 10 years ago hs
to create sses as presc the departmen
ask us what a climate ribed and t had no regar
we in which team any speci
fic needs d for the need
stability within need, they listen to members
automatical were viewe
d as an incon s of the line
the team, our ideas, ly
and a posit they''re prepa think of line venience.
ive team spirit red to try managers Lee has
that we all something as their custo
benefit from. differ ent. Lee has mers. They
created a
Improveme sense of
nt areas
Self
I sometimes
get caught
standards. up in the peop
I need to le side of
be better things, and
about that. miss out on
opportunit
ies to articu
Manager late/comm
unicate/en
Lee need force
s to focus
team mem more time
bers seem on delivery.
to take advan Lee allow
tage of their s personal
relationsh
good relati ips to get
onship with in the way
Lee, and do of productivity
not delive .
r as they shou One or two
ld. Lee need
s
2016 Richard 2016 Richard
Boyatzis, Boyatzis,
Daniel Golema Daniel Golema
n, and Korn n, and Korn
Ferry. All Ferry. All
rights reserve rights reserve
d d
Continued Continued
8 27

2.4 The ESCI group report

Introducing the ESCI across a team or group can amplify its impact. It is often easier for people to
develop their capabilities when others around them are doing the same, and an organization can
gain momentum when a number of employees build their understanding of the emotional and social
intelligence competencies together.
ESCI data can be reported across several participants using the group report. Complementing the
feedback report for individuals, the group report helps practitioners to identify overall strengths and
development needs so that appropriate development can be arranged across teams, business units,
or organizations.
Group report | Report generated on 12/20/2016 Group report | Report generated on 12/20/2016
Summary results Competency results by rater group
The summary results help you to understand the strengths and development needs of the group. The chart below based on the The charts below show how the group is perceived, overall, by the different types of raters listed. Use these charts to focus on
Total Others' scores represents the degree of consistency with which participants in the group demonstrate each competency. any perspectives that are particularly important to understand.
The dark blue bar shows the percentage of participants where the competency is seen as a strength in their individual report
Group report (with a competency score greater than or equal to 4.3). The light blue bar shows the percentage of participants who demonstrate
the competency sometimes or often (with a competency score between 3 and 4.3). The gray bar shows the percentage of
Total Others shows the average across all perspectives, excluding self ratings.
ESCI
participants who demonstrate the competency never or rarely (with a competency score less than 3).
A check next to a competency indicates that it is a strength across the group; 75% or more of the participants demonstrate the
Emotional Self-Awareness
competency as a personal strength. Recognizing how our emotions affect our performance. Percentage of participants
People who demonstrate this competency know the signals 0 25 50 75 100
n = 30 that tell them what they're feeling, and use them as an
Total Others 20 80
ongoing guide to how they are doing.
Self 53 33 13
Cluster/Competency Percentage of participants Strength
Emotional and Social Competency Inventory Manager 30 60 10
0 25 50 75 100
People you lead 30 70
Group report
Peers 30 63 7
Self-Awareness
Client: Sample Client Emotional Self-Awareness
Other 17 83
20 80
Date of report: 12/20/2016 Self-Management
Achievement Orientation
Achievement Orientation
20 80
Striving to meet or exceed a standard of excellence. People Percentage of participants

Adaptability 23 77
who demonstrate this competency look for ways to do things 0 25 50 75 100
Emotional Self-Control better, set challenging goals, and take calculated risks.
20 70 10 Total Others 20 80
Positive Outlook 30 70 Self 47 50 3
Manager 30 53 17
Social Awareness
People you lead 30 63 7
Empathy 20 80
Peers 30 57 13
Organizational Awareness 33 67
Other 17 63 21
Relationship Management
Conflict Management 27 70 3 consistently demonstrates (equivalent score 4.3 or above)

Group repor Group repor sometimes or often demonstrates (equivalent score between 3 and 4.3)
t | Repor t | Repor
t
gener ated t generated
Coach and Mentor
on 12/20 23 77 on 12/20 never or rarely demonstrates (equivalent score less than 3)
/2016 /2016
Influence
Item res 30 70
Highest
ults by co scoring ite
Inspirational Leadership
mpetenc 23 70 7
ms
Teamwork
y
Relation 23 77 The char
ship Man t below base
It shows
agemen
t: Conflict the 10 item d on the Total Othe
Manage s that rater rs' scores
ment
consistently demonstrates (equivalent score 4.3 or above) Items that s scored shows the
# are shad highest for discrete
Item sometimes or often demonstrates (equivalent score between 3 and 4.3) ed repre this grou behaviors
sent thos p. These that this
are rank
8
never or rarely demonstrates (equivalent score less than 3) e that were
scored in ed by high group demonstrates
Tries to resolv 75 % or more participants demonstrate the competency consistently
reverse. est average most cons
e conflict # Item score. istently.
instead of
14 allowing Percent
2016 Richard Boyatzis, Daniel Goleman, and Korn Ferry. All rights reserved Resolves
conflict by it to fester 0 of participan
de-escalati ts 56 Work
15 Daniel ng thereserved 50 s well in Ferry. All rights reserved Competen
2016 Richard Boyatzis, Goleman, and Korn Ferry. All rights
Allow s conflict
emotions 4 2016 Richard Boyatzis, Daniel Goleman,
particand Korn teams by cy 5
in a situat 33 ipation of encouragin
to fester ion 100 everyone g Average
26 present Teamwork score Percentage
Tries to resolv 67 13 Understand of participan
e conflict 33 0
involved by openly the team s the values and ts
talking abou or organ culture of 4.2 50
t disagreem 17 60 7 ization Organizati
46 onal Awar 100
Resolves ents with 30 2 Sees the 40
conflict by those positive eness
bringing 53 and event in people, 60
it into the 37 s more often situations, 4.1
open than the Positive
8 negative Outlook 37
63 Tries to resolv
allowing e confli
it to fester ct instead of
30 4.1 63
Relation Conflict Mana
ship Man 17 Convinces gement 33
agemen 70
others by
t: Coach approaches using multip 4.1 67
and Men le
#
tor 28
Influence
33
Item Seeks to
improve
measurabl own 67
22 e and challe self by setting 4.1
Provides nging goals Achieveme
on-going 18 nt Orientation 30
mentoring Remains
32 or coach Percent calm in stress
Provides ing of participan ful situat 4.1 70
feedback 0 ions
others find ts Emotional
47 helpful for 50 52 Coaches Self-Contro 27
Personally their deve and ment l
invests time lopment 33
ors other 73
and effort 100 s 4.1
52 Coaches in developing 57 Coach and
and ment others 30 10 34 Mentor 30
ors other Able to descr
54 s own action ibe how own feelin
Does not 4.1 70
spend time 33 70 s gs affect
developing Emotional
66 others 32 Provides Self-Awaren 37
Cares abou 63 3 feedback ess
t others and 37 their deve others find 4.1 63
their deve lopment helpful for
lopment 17 Coach and
63 Mentor 37
33 Indicates
indicates reversed 4.1 63
reversed 50 item
item 37
30
60 3
70
consistently consistently
demonstrates demonstrates
(equivalent or above (equivalent
score 4.3 )
sometimes score 4.3
or often demon or above sometimes
4.3) )
strates (equiva score betweor often demonstrates
never or lent score en 3 and (equivalent
rarely demon between never or 4.3)
strates (equiva 3 and rarely demon
less than strates (equiva
lent score 3)
less than lent score
3)
2016 Richa 2016 Richa

rd Boyat rd Boyat
zis, Danie zis, Danie
l Goleman, l Goleman,
and Korn and Korn
Ferry. All Ferry. All
rights reserv rights reserv
ed ed
16 10

3. The scientific foundation for the ESCI
The ESCI provides a behavioral measure of emotional and social

intelligence competencies. Developed for business and education
organizations, it achieves research level psychometric-based standards
(Boyatzis, Gaskin, & Wei, 2015). The ESCI database has grown from
4,000 to nearly 80,000 participants, from 42,000 to nearly 700,000
non-self raters, and from 270 to over 2,200 organizations. Based on
this growth, Korn Ferry Hay Group has updated the ESCI global norms,
reviewed its psychometric-based properties, and gathered the most
recent research.
3.1 The development of the ESCI

Korn Ferry Hay Group pioneered the understanding of work, organizational context, and the role of
human motivation, competencies, and self-image in performance and development. Our partnership
with Richard Boyatzis and Daniel Goleman provides ongoing research into the 360-degree
assessment of behavioral EI. This work has resulted in the Emotional and Social Competency
Inventory (ESCI).
Measuring competencies in preference to intelligence

Twenty years of research, initiated by McClelland in 1973 with his seminal article, Testing for
Competence Rather Than for Intelligence, led to an understanding that competencies provided a
reliable way of differentiating performance in a variety of organizations. This work was captured in
the Hay/McBer Generic Competency Dictionary (1985). It provided the basis for Boyatzis Self- and
external assessment questionnaires (Boyatzis, Cowen, & Kolb, 1995). These were developed to assess
the competencies of MBA and executive students against the generic model of management at the
Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University.
Measuring emotional intelligence Development of the ECI and ECI-U

Expanding upon Boyatzis well-established measure and Daniel Golemans Working with Emotional
Intelligence (1998), Boyatzis and Goleman developed a pool of items designed to capture the full
spectrum of emotional competencies. Together, with Hay/McBer consultants, they further refined
these items to form the Emotional Competency Inventory (ECI), drawing upon expert opinion and
prior studies to include developmental scaling and target levels (Boyatzis & Goleman, 1996/1999).
Target levels were established through a modeling process in which the behaviors of effective
and outstanding performers were differentiated. The levels of behavioral complexity that each
group demonstrated revealed tipping points along the competency scales. These points became
indicators of strengthtarget levels for those participants wanting to work toward high performance
across the ECI.
A sample of over 10,000 ECIs, taken between March 1999 and May 2001 and providing total others
scores on over 4,000 managers and professionals, was compiled and analyzed. The result was
version 2 of the ECI (ECI-2) with robust psychometric-based standards for reliability, validity, and
factor differentiation (Boyatzis & Sala, 2004).
Table 2. Development of the ESCI
Key events in the development of the ESCI

1973 David McClellands seminal article, Testing for Competence Rather Than for
Intelligence, initiates interest into the research of competencies and their
application in organizations.
1982 Richard Boyatzis publishes The Competent Manager, an empirical approach

to identifying the characteristics which enable managers to be effective in
various management jobs.
1985 Hay/McBers Generic Competency Dictionary is first developed by Richard

Boyatzis et al.
1991 Richard Boyatzis develops a self and external assessment questionnaire for
use with MBA and executive students to assess managerial competencies.
1993 Signe and Lyle Spencer develop and document the generic competency
dictionary in their book Competence at Work.
1996 The Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI) is developed by Boyatzis and

Goleman, in partnership with Hay Group, measuring 22 competencies.
1998 Daniel Golemans Working with Emotional Intelligence draws on Boyatzis

work and the Hay/McBer generic competency dictionary to identify core
emotional competencies.
2002 Ongoing testing, analysis, development, and validation results in version 2 of

the ECI, measuring a reduced number of competencies (18).
2007 Boyatzis and Hay Group consultants reconceptualize the ECI-2 as a

measure of emotional and social intelligence competencies. A review of all
competencies and items, along with factor analysis, lead to the Emotional
and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI) with a reduced number of
competencies (12) and a higher psychometric-based standard.
2009-2011 Ongoing item review, testing, and analysis of the ESCI.
2010 ESCI norms derived from a data set consisting of 4,014 participants, 42,092
raters, and 273 organizations.
2011 Version 2 of the ESCI launched with 12 competency scales and 68 items.
2016 ESCI norms updated from a data set consisting of nearly 80,000
participants, nearly 700,000 non-self raters, and over 2,200 organizations.
Emotional intelligence is important to job performance, physical and mental health, leadership
and job satisfaction We find convincing evidence that EI is the sine qua non of leadership

(p. 45, Walter et al., 2001).
(Miao, Humphrey, & Qian, 2014, p. 33)

Measuring emotional and social intelligence Development of the ESCI and ESCI-U
In response to the professional research communitys requirement for high psychometric-based
standards, Boyatzis and Goleman reconceptualized the ECI-2 as a measure of emotional and social
intelligence competencies (Boyatzis, 2006). They reviewed every item and competency scale,
applying factor analyses and revising them as necessary.
The resulting instrument, the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI), was piloted
with a total of 116 participants and 1,022 raters in the US and the UK. The psychometric-based
standards achieved in the resulting statistical analyses provided reassurance that the ESCI focuses on
observable, recognizable, distinct, and concise behaviors (Boyatzis, 2007).
Subsequent detailed analyses to verify the scale and factor structure of the ESCI, with 5,700
participants and 62,000 raters, further improved the factor loadings (Boyatzis & Gaskin, 2010),
resulting in version 2 of the ESCI with slight changes to the items.
How the ESCI differs from the ECI-2

The outcome of these developments is that the ESCI is now Korn Ferry Hay Groups recommended
instrument. It offers an even higher psychometric-based standard than the ECI-2, it is easier for
participants and raters to complete, and it provides feedback with greater insight and relevance to a
wider range of job roles and levels.
The ESCI continues to measure behavioral EI competencies, gather multi-rater perspectives, and help
participants understand the themes and messages in their feedback. However, because the ESCI and
ECI-2 differ in a number of ways, it is not helpful for participants to compare previous ECI-2 scores
with current ESCI scores directly.
The changes made during the development of the ESCI are as follows:
Survey items
The total number of items for the ESCI is 68, and for the ESCI-U is 70; the ECI-2 contained 72.
Each competency scale has five items and most have an additional reverse-scored item.
All items were reviewed and, where appropriate, rewritten to make them more concise and
understandable. The intent of each competency was written into each item to ensure that the
responder is answering the intended question and providing insightful feedback.
All the revised items were piloted.

Competencies
The ESCI contains 12 competencies, the ECI-2 contained 18. The ESCI-U has two additional
competencies: Pattern recognition and Systems thinking. Competencies that did not appear valid as
separate scales were merged, removed, or renamed:
Emotional self-awareness and Accurate self-assessment showed considerable correlation and

were merged. The label Emotional self-awareness captured the essence of the new competency.
Achievement orientation and Initiative showed considerable correlation and were merged. The
label Achievement orientation captured the essence of the new competency.
Self-confidence was removed for two reasons. First, it was not sufficiently distinguishable from
Achievement orientation. Second, it was considered that different cultural norms result in too
much variation in how Self-confidence is demonstrated by participants and observed by others.
Transparency was removed. It did not distinguish itself statistically, is difficult to observe and
assess, and has limitations in coaching and development settings.
Service orientation was removed because it was clear that it described the application of
Empathy to customers and clients.
Change catalyst was removed because it was highly correlated with Achievement orientation
and described its consequence.
Optimism was renamed as Positive outlook, better describing the behaviors expected.
Developing others was renamed as Coach and mentor, better describing the behaviors expected.
Competency strength
ESCI competencies do not have developmental levels, or levels of complexity, as they did in the
ECI-2. All ESCI items have the same value, or weight, and item scores are averaged to give an
overall competency score.
The ESCI asks raters to report how often a person demonstrates the behavior described in
each item. The feedback report provides an insight into the level of consistency with which a
competency is demonstrated.
The ECI-2 applied an algorithm, or formula, to indicate effectiveness based on the combination of
certain competencies. The ESCI does not use an algorithm so that participants and coaches are
free to decide which competencies are most important within a given role.
An ESCI competency is considered to be a strength when the total others scorethe average of
all raters scoresis 4.3 or higher, meaning that the behavior is observed consistently.
The ESCI report allows participants to benchmark their scores against the global norm. The
scores of participants at the 25th and 75th percentiles are shown for each competency in the
feedback report.

For certified practitioners who are experienced in using the ECI-2, Table 3 compares the two
instruments and describes the benefits of the ESCI:
Table 3. Comparison of ESCI and ECI-2
ESCI ECI-2
Number of competencies 12 18
Number of items 68 72
Scoring Frequency of observed Level of complexity of observed

behavior: Never, Rarely, behavior: 1 to 4.
Sometimes, Often, Consistently.
Grouping of competencies Competencies clustered An algorithm generated

according to the four quadrants the clusters, within which
of the model, allowing the competencies were
participants to identify the complementary, compensatory,
behaviors that support their and alternate manifestations.
personal preferences, roles, and
work contexts.
Indication of strength Strength is indicated when A stretching target, appropriate

the total others score the only to leaders and key talent.
average of all raters scores
is 4.3 or higher, meaning that Strength was indicated by a
the behavior is observed participants achievement of
consistently. a mix of competencies at the
appropriate levels to meet the
algorithm criteria.
Psychometric-based standard Research standards of reliability Acceptable reliability and

and validity. validity. Some instability
between competency scales.

3.2 The 2016 review

In the five years since our last review, the ESCI database has grown
significantly.
It now contains nearly 20 times the number of participants, over 15 times the number of raters, and
over 8 times the number of organizations. Tables 4 and 5 provide a summary of the key database
changes.
Update of the ESCI norms

Scoring by total others (non-self) raters is very similar to that in 2010. The final balanced sample
consists of data from the following:
Table 4. Final balanced sample
2016 norm group 2010 norm group

Total number of participants 79,731 4,014
Total number of non-self raters 655,806 42,092
Total number of organizations 2,276 273
Aggregate statistics for number of raters per participant

For total others ratings, the aggregate statistics are as follows:
Table 5. Aggregate statistics
ESCI 2016 norm group

Total number of participants with total others scores 67,604
Total number of participants with self scores only 12,127
Mean raters per participant 9.7
Mode raters per participant 7
Standard deviation 5.7
Participants rated by 1-9 raters 55.9%
Participants rated by 1-20 raters 95.7%

Inter-competency correlations for the ESCI

The review of inter-competency correlations confirms that each ESCI competency describes a
distinct, discernible behavior. The correlations are expected to be high because the competencies
are functionally relatedthat is, when a person uses one, there are certain others they are also likely
to be invoking. For example, it is expected that if a person is showing the behaviors in the Teamwork
competency, they are also using behaviors in the Empathy competency to assist or lay a foundation
for understanding the others in the team.
The following tables show the Pearson correlations (p < .001, two-tailed, for all competencies) for
total others and self scores for:
1 Achievement orientation 7 Emotional self-control

2 Adaptability 8 Inspirational leadership
3 Coach and mentor 9 Influence
4 Conflict management 10 Organizational awareness
5 Empathy 11 Positive outlook
6 Emotional self-awareness 12 Teamwork
Inter-competency correlations
Table 6. Total others scores
Note: The global sample has been weighted to ensure no single organization exceeds 5% overall. N = 67,468
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 1
2 .774 1
3 .661 .718 1
4 .711 .694 .711 1
5 .643 .731 .760 .742 1
6 .586 .604 .662 .657 .737 1
7 .540 .658 .645 .541 .735 .466 1
8 .727 .763 .749 .836 .751 .674 .554 1
9 .688 .795 .731 .736 .762 .671 .589 .800 1
10 .676 .791 .698 .711 .781 .661 .605 .749 .805 1
11 .679 .724 .678 .659 .694 .605 .648 .753 .706 .663 1
12 .719 .746 .770 .752 .865 .674 .742 .769 .752 .778 .740 1

Inter-competency correlations continued
Table 7. Self scores
Note: The global sample has been weighted to ensure no single organization exceeds 5% overall. N = 65,624
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 1
2 .482 1
3 .439 .401 1
4 .380 .424 .438 1
5 .360 .423 .452 .439 1
6 .352 .346 .380 .398 .518 1
7 .289 .431 .283 .402 .442 .209 1
8 .453 .476 .624 .489 .459 .386 .329 1
9 .356 .506 .416 .394 .468 .384 .287 .492 1
10 .356 .490 .369 .362 .504 .405 .314 .418 .515 1
11 .439 .491 .420 .417 .424 .344 .417 .513 .396 .374 1
12 .426 .445 .480 .474 .566 .385 .468 .510 .424 .469 .469 1

3.3 Reliability
Reliability refers to the consistency or dependability of scores on
an assessment. Scores on unreliable assessments have a substantial
amount of error, or noise. In contrast, scores on a reliable assessment
have relatively little error. They contain a strong signal that reflects
individuals true standing on what is being measured. In general, the
reliability of an assessment can be viewed as the signal portion of the
signal to noise ratio. Assessments with relatively large proportions of
signal yield more consistent scores.
There are several ways of estimating an assessments reliability. None is perfect. Whenever possible,
multiple methods of evaluating reliability should be used. Here, we discuss the internal consistency
and interrater agreement of the ESCI scales.
The 2016 data enabled an assessment of the ESCIs internal consistency with a much larger and more
diverse sample. This section also provides interrater agreement values that support our approach
to aggregating scores across raters. No data are provided on test-retest reliability, as participants
who complete the ESCI more than once have typically undergone some intervention or targeted
development work between assessments and so changes in their scores would be anticipated.

Internal consistency for the ESCI

Cronbachs alpha is one of the most widely used approaches to estimating reliability. Its popularity is
in part due to the fact that it can be computed from scores collected during a single administration of
an assessment. In addition, Cronbachs alpha tends to yield a conservative, lower-bound estimate of
reliability (Osburn, 2000). When Cronbachs alpha is acceptably high, it suggests that other methods
of estimating reliability will yield even more favorable results. For scales used in research, Devellis
(2003) defines a Cronbachs alpha of .70 to .80 as respectable and a value above .80 as very good.
Cronbachs alpha reflects the internal consistency of a scale or measure. Evaluating the internal
consistency of the ESCI is done to help ensure that all the items associated with a specific
competency relate to each other.
Cronbachs alphas for ESCI competencies

Cronbachs alphas computed separately for self and non-self (total others) raters. All values for non-
self raters are .85 or greater, indicating very good internal consistency for the ESCI scales.
Table 8. Cronbachs alphas for ESCI competencies
Total others raters Self raters

ESCI cluster Competency
(N = 679,039) (N = 77,802)
Self-awareness Emotional self-awareness 0.87 0.79
Self-management Achievement orientation 0.88 0.78
Adaptability 0.87 0.75
Emotional self-control 0.90 0.85
Positive outlook 0.90 0.85

Social awareness Empathy 0.88 0.71
Organizational awareness 0.87 0.76

Relationship management Coach and mentor 0.93 0.87
Conflict management 0.85 0.75
Influence 0.85 0.72
Inspirational leadership 0.89 0.77
Teamwork 0.90 0.77

Interrater agreement for the ESCI

Evaluating interrater agreement for ESCI scores provides evidence to support the aggregation of
scores across raters. One widely used measure of interrater agreement is the rWG(J) index (Cohen,
Doveh, & Nahum-Shani, 2009) which was developed by James, Demaree, and Wolf (1984, 1993). In
their comprehensive review of the ESCI, Boyatzis, Gaskin, and Wei (2015) cite the following:
Badri (2013), using a sample of 468 respondents, reported the following rWG(J) for each
competency: Emotional self-awareness, 0.86; Achievement orientation, 0.94; Adaptability, 0.95;
Emotional self-control, 0.92; Positive outlook, 0.95; Empathy, 0.92; Organizational awareness,
0.92; Coach and mentor, 0.91; Influence, 0.93; Conflict management, 0.88; Inspirational leadership,
0.94; and Teamwork, 0.97 (p. 250).
All of these values are well in excess of the threshold of 0.70, the level at which aggregating rater
scores is considered appropriate (Cohen et al., 2009). They also all fall into the category that Brown
and Hauenstein (2005) would call strong agreement (i.e., values of .80 and higher).
3.4 Model fit

Another important feature of an assessment is the extent to which the
observed pattern of relationships among its items and scales reflect
the underlying model that the assessment was designed to measure.
A strong model fit indicates that the items are organized into the
appropriate scales and that the scales are meaningful. This supports the
interpretation of the feedback provided by the assessment.
In a recently published chapter in the Handbook of Intelligence, Boyatzis, Gaskin, and Wei (2015)
described the results of their thorough review of the ESCI and the ESCI-U. They noted that
exploratory factor analysis showed that for both the ESCI and the ESCI-U, items load on the
appropriate (predicted) factor. In addition, confirmatory factor analyses, performed separately for
self and total others ratings, showed that most fit indices supported the models for both the ESCI
and ESCI-U. For example, RMSEA was < .05 for all four models (self and total others for both ESCI
and ESCI-U). As is often the case with large sample sizes, the chi-square ratios were substantial,
which may account for the chi-square to df ratio being outside the typical standards. Overall, the
research on model fit supports the interpretability of ESCI and ESCI-U scales.

3.5 Criterion validity

During the decades of development leading to the ESCI, research into EI
has been widespread. Alongside Boyatzis and Korn Ferry Hay Groups
ongoing reviews and studies, EI has become a focus for academic
investigation. More than a quarter of a million participants in business
organizations and education institutions around the world have received
ESCI and ECI feedback, providing a rich source of data.
During this time, the nature of this research work has changed. Early studies focused on the ECIs and
ESCIs validity in a general senseits capacity to measure what it was designed to measure. Recent
work has focused on the criterion validity of the ESCI, evaluating the extent to which scores on ESCI
competencies relate to outcomes of interest. In addition, research has demonstrated the incremental
validity of the ESCIthe extent to which the ESCI can provide unique predictive value to real-world
outcomes beyond that provided by intelligence and personality (Boyatzis, 2016).
The following sections on the criterion validity of the ESCI summarize recent research findings from a
number of different countries. They investigate a range of workplace outcomes in different contexts,
often business organizations within which Korn Ferry Hay Group or other researchers are studying or
providing consultancy services. They explore the use of emotional and social intelligence behaviors
by leaders and employees in different roles, along with other factors that affect outcomes. They also
offer recommendations for the use of emotional and social intelligence competencies in HR practices.
Most of these studies use the ESCI, the ESCI-U, or parts of these instruments. Others use interview
techniques to gather behavioral data and code it against ESCI competencies. They build on decades
of research studies that focused on the ECI and ECI-U. Summaries of the ECI and ECI-U studies are
included in Section 3.6 Criterion validity studies using the ECI or ECI-U.
Each study provides distinct insights into how emotional and social intelligence affects outcomes
in a specific setting. Together they illustrate the difference that EI can make to performance and
engagement at work. They reveal how important it is for leadership and talent practitioners to
engage with what EI means for their organizations.
Criterion validation studies build our understanding of EI and organizational outcomes, including
leadership performance, financial performance, team climate, and engagement. They help
organizations understand the full impact of using the ESCI so that they can maximize its benefits for
their leaders and employees. If you are interested in working with us to conduct an ESCI validation
study, please contact your Korn Ferry Hay Group account manager.
3.5.1 Comparisons across data from Korn Ferry Hay Group leadership and employee
effectiveness surveys
Our 2016 update of the ESCI allowed us to conduct the following study investigating trends since our
2010 review, as well as exploring the relationships between ESCI competencies and data gathered
from the Korn Ferry Hay Group Leadership Styles and Organizational Climate 2.0 surveys and our
Employee Effectiveness Survey (Kerr, in press). The findings reinforce the central role that ESCI
competencies play in employee and leadership performance.

Are people becoming more emotionally and socially intelligent?

Since 2010, our ESCI database has grown significantly. It now contains nearly 20 times more
participants and over 8 times more client organizations. What do these data tell us? Is this increased
engagement with EI translating into increased capability?
When individuals demonstrate an ESCI competency consistently (i.e., with an average total others
score of 4.3 and above), they can feel confident that it is a strength for them. The comparison
between our 2010 and 2016 data is encouraging:
The proportion of participants who demonstrate no ESCI strengths has remained stable at around 20%.
The proportion who demonstrate three or fewer ESCI strengths has fallen from 52% to 48%.
The proportion who demonstrate nine or more ESCI strengths has increased from 16% to 19%.
The behavioral bell curve appears to be shifting to the right. A growing interest in emotional and
social intelligence is showing signs of impacting individuals capabilities as well as their organizations
aspirations.
Detailed investigation shows that participants continue to be strongest in the competencies that
typically define baseline employability: Achievement orientation, Teamwork, and Organizational
awareness. Those that require most development are the more complex personal and interpersonal
qualities: Emotional self-awareness, Influence, Empathy, and Inspirational leadership. These
competencies reinforce the importance of coaching and support, and the data go on to reveal other
findings that inform ESCI coaching practice.
Does Emotional self-awareness support overall EI capability?

Practitioners and participants alike ask most questions about Emotional self-awareness. Deep-seated
and difficult to observe, it can be challenging for raters to score. Its role in participants overall
demonstration of EI is something we continue to explore.
As we discovered in 2010, Emotional self-awareness lies at the heart of emotional and social
intelligence (Havers, 2010). Participants with high Emotional self-awareness display strength in more
of all the other ESCI competencies. The 2016 database shows that:
A participant who demonstrates Emotional self-awareness never or rarely is likely to show

strength in just one ESCI competency.
A participant who demonstrates Emotional self-awareness often or consistently is likely to show

strength in 10 ESCI competencies.
Figure 2. Average number of ESCI strengths based on total others Emotional self-awareness
(ESA) score
of ESCI strengths
Average number
12.0 10.0
10.0
8.0
5.3
6.0
4.0 2.3
1.0
2.0
0.0
ESA low ESA low to medium ESA medium to high ESA high

Emotional self-awareness remains a pivotal competency for employees and leaders. Without it, an
individuals chance of demonstrating strength in other EI behaviors is low. With it, they are likely
to shine in all other competencies. The 2016 data give practitioners an insight into the specific
competencies, all strongly related to leadership capability, which may need development if
Emotional self-awareness is low.
Table 9. Impact of Emotional self-awareness scores
Participants requiring development:

Impact of Emotional self-awareness (ESA)
scores on other ESCI competencies in the high ESA in the low ESA
scoring group scoring group
Self-management Achievement orientation 0% 10%
Adaptability 0% 19%
Emotional self-control 0% 18%
Positive outlook 0% 17%

Social awareness Empathy 0% 40%
Organizational awareness 0% 13%

Relationship Coach and mentor 0% 31%
management
Conflict management 1% 39%
Influence 0% 36%
Inspirational leadership 1% 48%
Teamwork 0% 16%
Of those low in Emotional self-awareness, around 40% are likely to require development to
strengthen their Inspirational leadership, Empathy, and Conflict management. A third are likely
to need help with Influence and Coach and mentor. The significance of the first three of these
competencies is reinforced when ESCI data are compared with leaders Korn Ferry Hay Group
Leadership Styles and Organizational Climate 2.0 data.
Does EI strengthen a leaders impact?

The purpose of investing in emotional and social intelligence is to enable employees to be more
effective, engaged, and satisfied, and to equip leaders to maintain this experience for their team
members. Getting the work climate right is one of the key drivers of team performance, and leaders
play the biggest part in making it happen.
Korn Ferry Hay Groups recent update of the Leadership Styles and Organizational Climate 2.0 surveys
(Hay Group 2015a, 2015b), so close to the ESCI norm update, offered a unique chance to compare
these databases alongside each other. The availability of data from participants on our Making Great
Leaders program enabled us to focus on 2,052 leaders who completed ESCI and Leadership Styles
and Organizational Climate 2.0 surveys within a six-week period. This analysis answered new questions
about how leaders use their emotional and social intelligence to be effective.

How do we measure team climate?

The Korn Ferry Hay Group Organizational Climate survey measures the six dimensions of climate that
have the biggest impact on team performance:
Clarity: People know what is expected of them and how they contribute to organizational goals.
Standards: Challenging but attainable goals are set for the organization and its employees.
Flexibility: There are no unnecessary rules and procedures, and new ideas are acted upon.
Responsibility: People are empowered to get on with their job and held accountable for it.
Rewards: Good performance is recognized and rewarded, and people know what they do well
and what they need to improve.
Team commitment: People are proud to belong to the organization, and collaborate towards a
common objective.
The survey asks team members to rate the climate they currently experience and their ideal
climatewhat they need to help them perform at their best. Effective leaders create high levels on
each climate dimension and as close as possible to their team members ideal levels. They do it by
understanding what needs to change in their teams climate, by using their leadership styles to make
it happen, and by drawing on their competencies to sustain their efforts. This process is captured in
the Korn Ferry Hay Group leadership effectiveness model:
50% 70% 30%
The demands of A leaders Leadership Team climate Results

the leadership individual styles
job/situation qualities
of the variance of the variance in

in team climate can be financial results can be
explained by differences in explained by differences in
leadership style team climate
Does Emotional self-awareness help leaders create positive team climates?

In exploring the relationships between ESCI competencies and leadership effectiveness, we started
with Emotional self-awareness, the heart of EI. We compared leaders Emotional self-awareness
scores with their Climate Index, an overall measure of leadership impact. Based on an individuals
current climate scores and the gaps between current and ideal across all six dimensions, Climate
Index is benchmarked against other leaders and reported by quartiles.
We discovered that only 5% of leaders with low Emotional self-awareness created top quartile
climates for their teams, compared with 62% of leaders with high Emotional self-awareness. If an
employees manager has low Emotional self-awareness, the employees chance of being in a team
that does little to support their performance is high.

Table 10. Leaders Emotional self-awareness compared with Climate Index
Percentage of leaders, by Climate Index, with:

Climate Index High Emotional self-awareness Low Emotional self-awareness
Top quartile 62% 5%
Above average 19% 12%
Below average 14% 24%
Bottom quartile 5% 59%
Do other specific EI competencies support positive climates?

The ESCI model gives people 12 distinct competencies to work with. It allows them to compare their
feedback with their leadership situation and make choices: to use their strengths more frequently,
to work on underdeveloped or underused competencies, or both. But do any specific competencies
stand out for leaders? Do the data reveal relationships between specific competencies and climate?
A deeper dive into the data revealed the following positive and significant correlations (p < 0.0001):
Leaders with high scores in Conflict management are likely to create the most positive climates
overall (r = .58).
Inspirational leadership comes second in the strength of its relationship with climate (r = .56).
In close third place is Empathy (r = .54).
These findings equip practitioners to give confident guidance to leaders using leaders ESCI feedback
to improve their impact. The findings give coaches permission to focus attention on the personal
and interpersonal qualities that support the more obvious leadership skills, particularly on Emotional
self-awareness, which is emerging as foundational to strength in all other competencies. They also
provide insight for individuals who are not yet leaders, indicating those who are most likely to be
successful in a leadership position.
When climate is low, how accurately does the leaders boss observe what is happening?
ESCI feedback allows an individual to compare the average scores of different groups of raters: their
manager, their team members, their peers, and others. Managers are typically the lowest scoring
group: their perception of emotional and social intelligence often appears more discerning than that
of other raters. The 2016 data allowed us to investigate how leaders Climate Index scores varied with
their EI scores, comparing the perceptions of their team members with those of their own managers.
We investigated leaders Climate Index data against the three ESCI competencies with the biggest
gaps between manager and team members scores: Conflict management, Inspirational leadership,
and Empathy. Higher scores in all three ESCI competencies were related to more positive team
climates. However, we also found that when team members experience a positive climate, they score
their leaders ESCI competencies more positively than their leaders manager does. When team
members experience a negative climate, they score their leaders ESCI competencies more negatively
than their leaders manager does.

Figure 3. Climate Index for the competencies with the largest gaps between manager and
team member scores
Conflict management Inspirational leadership

Mean competency score
4.50 4.50
4.00 4.00
3.50 3.50
3.00 3.00
Bottom Below Above Top Bottom Below Above Top
quartile average average quartile quartile average average quartile
Climate Index Climate Index
Empathy
4.50
Manager
4.00 scores
Team
3.50 members'
scores
3.00
Bottom Below Above Top
quartile average average quartile
Climate Index
This finding is of real value to leaders who receive ESCI and Leadership Styles and Organizational
Climate 2.0 feedback. It offers an important reminder that team members experiences matter most
in understanding climate and its impact on their performance. It also reveals that when it comes to
assessing a leaders behavior, their team members bottom-up observations are likely to be more
discerning than their managers top-down perspective.
Does EI strengthen a leaders approach?

The Korn Ferry Hay Group leadership effectiveness model demonstrates that effective leaders draw
on their capabilities to sustain their use of a wide range of leadership styles, ready to respond to
different situations, challenges, and team members. This enables them to create and maintain team
climates that support performance. ESCI feedback helps them use and develop the competencies
that are most effective, given their situation and their capabilities.
The data from 2,052 leaders who completed ESCI Leadership Styles and Organizational Climate 2.0
surveys within a six-week period enabled us to explore how leaders use their emotional and social
intelligence in their leadership.

How do we measure leadership styles?

The Korn Ferry Hay Group Leadership Styles survey measures the six leadership styles that have the
biggest impact on climate:
Visionary: Providing long-term direction and context.
Participative: Building commitment and generating new ideas.
Coaching: Supporting long-term development.
Affiliative: Creating trust and harmony.
Pacesetting: Accomplishing tasks to high standards.
Directive: Gaining immediate compliance.
Effective leaders have multiple styles in their toolkit, equipping them to respond flexibly to changing
demands. However, the styles are different in nature. The Visionary, Participative, and Coaching
styles are best for working toward long-term goals: they create the conditions for the employee
engagement, involvement, and development required to deliver over time. The Directive and
Pacesetting styles are best reserved for short-term fixes: addressing the situation when there is
a drop in standards or the job is not being done. Overuse of these styles typically has a negative
impact on team climate.
The Leadership Styles survey asks team members to rate the styles that they observe their leader using.
Leaders can compare this with their own view of their leadership stylestheir intended approach.
Do specific EI competencies support the leadership styles?

ESCI feedback enables leaders to play to their strengths as well as develop their weaker
competencies. But do any specific competencies stand out for leaders? Do the data reveal
relationships between specific competencies and specific leadership styles?
We explored the intuitive relationships, hypothesized by Korn Ferry Hay Group expert practitioners,
and confirmed the following positive and significant correlations (p < 0.0001):
Inspirational leadership with the Visionary leadership style (r = .60).
Teamwork with the Participative style (r = .50).
Coach and mentor with the Coaching style (r = .48).
Empathy with the Affiliative style (r = .52).
For leaders with high Achievement orientation, use of the Pacesetting style is higher for those
with lower Positive outlook scores (Cohens d = 0.24). Those who maintain their Positive outlook
are less likely to take work back from their team members and, consequently, will be better at
delegating effectively.

These findings equip practitioners to give confident guidance to leaders who are using ESCI
feedback to improve their approach. Other more detailed relationships also emerged that reveal the
importance of developing specific competencies. Given the strong correlation between climate and
leadership styles, it is no surprise to observe again the importance of a few key competencies:
Leaders with high scores in Conflict management are likely to be strong in their use of the long-
term leadership styles: Coaching (r = .63), Visionary (r = .59), Affiliative (r = .53), and Participative
(r = .52). It also helps them hold back on their use of the Pacesetting style (r = -.44). Conflict
management stands out from the data as one of the most significant competencies, potentially
an emerging key indicator for effective leadership, and one that strengthens with age and
experience.
Inspirational leadership comes second in support of Coaching (r = .59), Participative (r = .53), and
Affiliative (r = .50), as well as Visionary (r = .60) and restraining Pacesetting (r = -.40).
In close third place is Empathy in support of Visionary (r = .53), Coaching (r = .52), and
Participative (r = .52), as well as Affiliative (r = .52) and restraining Pacesetting (r = -.37).
Use of the Directive style is typically restrained by leaders who are strong in Empathy (r = -.29),
Teamwork (r = -.30) and, most significantly, Emotional self-control (r = -.37).
The significance of Emotional self-awareness emerged again. Leaders with high scores are likely
to be strong in the long-term styles: Visionary (r = .50), Coaching (r = .47), Participative (r = .46),
and Affiliative (r = .49).
Does EI broaden a leaders range of leadership styles?

Developing a range of leadership styles takes practice. It requires leaders to make clear and accurate
links between the demands of a situation and their choice of behaviors. So, how significant are EI
competencies in equipping leaders to develop strength and flexibility in their leadership styles?
Our overall measure of leadership strength is the Leadership Styles Index. Based on an individuals
six leadership styles scores, weighted to reflect their impact on climate, the index is benchmarked
against other leaders and reported by quartiles. The relationships between ESCI strengths and
Leadership Styles Index scores show that demonstrating just some ESCI competencies consistently
can make all the difference:
Leaders demonstrating six ESCI competencies consistently are typically top quartile for
leadership strength.
Those demonstrating four competencies are typically above average for leadership strength.
Those demonstrating two competencies are typically below average for leadership strength.
Those demonstrating only one ESCI competency consistently are typically bottom quartile for
leadership strength.

Dominant leadership styles, those that a leader demonstrates most frequently, make a difference to
a teams climate. The more dominant long-term styles in a leaders toolkit, the greater their capacity
to support their teams performance. The relationships between ESCI strengths and dominant
leadership styles show how the number and type of styles accessible to a leader typically changes
with ESCI strength:
With two or fewer ESCI strengths, leaders are typically able to draw upon only one or two
leadership styles. A deeper dive into the data reveal that these are most likely to be the short-
term styles that typically result in negative climates: Directive and Pacesetting.
With three to nine ESCI strengths, leaders tend to show signs of holding back on the short-term
styles and using the long-term Visionary, Participative, Coaching, and Affiliative styles more often.
With ten or more ESCI strengths, leaders typically use the long-term styles frequently and the
short-term styles only when required.
Figure 4. Changes in the number of leadership styles with ESCI strength
4.00 3.6
3.3
3.50
leadership styles
Average number
2.8 2.8
3.00
of dominant
2.6
2.4 2.3
2.50
1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9
2.00 1.7 1.7
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Average number of ESCI strengths
Does a leaders EI boost employee effectiveness?

Korn Ferry Hay Groups Leadership Styles and Organizational Climate 2.0 surveys provide feedback
that helps individual leaders understand and improve their effectiveness. Our Employee Effectiveness
Survey measures employee engagement and enablement across an organization, identifying specific
factors that prevent employees from performing at their best.
Our 2016 data contained 867 employees who had completed the ESCI for their managers and the
Employee Effectiveness Survey. It should be noted that when an employee completes the ESCI, their
focus is on their managers behavior; when they complete the Employee Effectiveness Survey, their focus
is on their organization. This analysis, therefore, compared data on two different targets, collected
at slightly different times. This removes the likelihood of an employee providing an overall response,
regardless of the survey. It provides a fascinating perspective of the impact that a leader has on their
team members compared with how their team members feel about working for the organization.

How do we measure employee effectiveness?

The Employee Effectiveness Survey goes beyond a typical employee satisfaction survey. As well as
measuring how motivated and engaged employees feel, it also identifies the factors that help or
hinder them in their work. By reporting both engagement and enablement drivers, the Employee
Effectiveness Survey helps organizations understand and address their particular barriers to
employee and organizational performance.
Figure 5. Employee Effectiveness Survey framework
1. Clear and promising direction Engagement

2. Confidence in leaders Committed and loyal Operational excellence
3. Quality and customer focus people, willing to go
4. Respect and recognition the extra mile.
5. Development opportunities
Customer loyalty
6. Compensation and benefits
Performance drivers configured

Engaged Performance Financial performance
to each clients business priorities
7. Performance management Enablement

Attract and retain talent
8. Authority and empowerment The right people in the
9. Resources right roles, in an enabling
10. Training work environment.
11. Collaboration Strong employer brand
12. Work, structure and process
What our surveys measure The results they achieve
Does a leaders EI increase employee effectiveness?

Comparing team members Employee Effectiveness Survey responses with their scores for their
managers EI confirmed that emotionally and socially intelligent leaders engage and enable their
team members:
Overall, ESCI competency scores relate positively and significantly with employee effectiveness
(mean r of .31, p < .001 for all correlations).
Every ESCI competency relates positively and significantly with every engagement and
enablement driver.
The establishment of engagement and enablement drivers may emerge from top-down strategy and
policy, but leaders who demonstrate ESCI competencies sustain employee effectiveness across their
organizations.
Does ESCI strength increase employee retention?

One of the key indicators of employee effectiveness that leaders have most influence over is
retention. The 2016 data allowed us to compare leaders ESCI scores with the employees tenure
plans: the length of time that they intend to remain in their organization.

Across this sample of 867 employees, 21.6% reported the intention to leave within two years.
However, their plans varied considerably according to their perception of their leaders ESCI
strengths:
For leaders demonstrating three or fewer ESCI competencies consistently (ESCI strengths), 42%
of team members planned to remain for at least five years.
Those with four to seven ESCI strengths were likely to retain 53% of their team members for at
least five years.
Those with eight or more ESCI strengths could hope to retain 69% of their team members for at
least five years.
Figure 6. Leaders ESCI strengths compared with employees tenure plans
70% 69%
60%
Percentage of
53%
Planning to leave within 2 years
employees
50%
42%
40% Planning to leave 3-5 years
30%
30% 29% 27%
20% Planning to stay 5+ years or
20% 16% 15% until retirement
10%
0%
0 to 3 4 to 7 8 to 12
ESCI strengths
For team members intending to leave within one year, even low levels of emotional and social
intelligence in their leaders can make a difference:
6% who observe their leader demonstrating at least one ESCI strength intend to leave
imminently.
This nearly doubles to 11% for those who observe their leader demonstrating no ESCI strengths.
These findings give reassurance that even very focused and targeted EI development can pay off.
Demonstrating strength in just one competency leads to more motivated and engaged employees,
lower turnover, and reduced cost of hire. Broader EI development can positively impact longer-term
employee retention.
Which ESCI competencies have the biggest relationship with employee retention?
To investigate the impact of specific ESCI competencies, we compared the scores of two groups of
team members: those intending to stay at least five years and those planning to leave within two
years. Their scores differed significantly across all competencies; all effect sizes (as measured with
Cohens d) were medium.

Their perceptions of their leaders emotional and social intelligence differed the most for Coach
and mentor (Cohens d = 0.58), Conflict management (0.53), and Inspirational leadership and
Organizational awareness (both 0.46). These were followed by Achievement orientation (0.45),
Teamwork (0.44), and Empathy (0.43).
These findings equip practitioners to give confident guidance to leaders using the leaders ESCI
feedback to improve their team members effectiveness.
3.5.2 Financial services leaders Performance

This study (Boyatzis, Good, & Massa, 2012) investigated how emotional and social intelligence
competencies, cognitive intelligence, and personality affected the performance of 60 financial
services sales leaders. The purpose was to assess what predictive value EI has in terms of impact on
performance, beyond that provided by personality factors and intelligence. One of the key factors
affecting the organizations financial results was the ability of its sales leaders to recruit and train new
sales staff, since they helped to offset losses when more experienced staff left the organization and
took their clients with them. Accordingly, the number of new financial advisors joining their team over
a one-year period was used as the objective outcome measure for participant performance. Since the
size of their division was strongly correlated with the performance outcome variable, it was used as a
control variable in all analyses.
The studys overall findings were:
Emotional and social intelligence, as measured by the ESCI, predicted performance. ESCI total
others scores, combined across the 12 competencies, were significantly positively related to the
number of new recruits (r = .33, p < .01).
Conscientiousness, as measured by the NEO Personality InventoryRevised (Costa & McCrae,

1992), predicted performance. This was the only one of the Big Five traits that related to the
number of new recruits (r = .30, p < .05).
Cognitive intelligence, as measured by Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices (Raven, 1962)

and the Mill Hill Vocabulary (MHV) Scale (Raven, 1982), did not predict performance. Nor did it
correlate with any other variable in the study, including ESCI scores.
Multiple regression analyses demonstrated that only combined ESCI total others scores had
significant incremental predictive value beyond that provided by division size, cognitive
intelligence, and personality.
When the EI and SI competencies within the ESCI were examined independently, Adaptability
and Influence emerged as significant predictors of performance.
The study recommended that training and development for aspiring sales leaders focus on
Adaptability and Influence and concluded that the findings suggest the importance of training
future sales leaders about the emotional aspects of leadership in influencing followers to promote
organizational objectives (p. 198).

3.5.3 IT and Administration team members Engagement

In response to reports that a low percentage of people feel engaged in their work, researchers
(Mahon, Taylor, & Boyatzis, 2014) explored how emotional intelligence is related to engagement.
Their study started from an accepted understanding that a number of factors contribute to employee
engagement, including:
Employees perceptions that their organizations value their contributions and care about their
well-being (organizational support).
Two climate factors: positivity about their organizations view of the future (shared personal
vision) and positivity about their work and their organizations (shared positive mood).
The study tested the further contribution of emotional intelligence as a moderator: amplifying or
depressing the effect that these factors have on employee engagement.
The IT department of a manufacturer and the administrative staff in a community college, both based
in the US, were approached. The researchers recruited over 600 employees, 231 of whom completed
a number of surveys to measure their perceptions of shared personal vision, shared positive mood,
organizational support, and engagement. They also completed the 360-degree ESCI, rating only the
emotional intelligence (EI) competencies and excluding the social intelligence (SI) competencies to
avoid potential duplication with the other measures.
The findings confirmed that EI does not have its own direct relationship with engagement. However,
the researchers clarified the way that EI interacted with the conditions for engagement:
EI increased the potency of shared personal vision. On its own, shared personal vision related
positively with engagement (b = .24, p < .01). EI amplified the relationship (b = .31, p < .01).
Compared with individuals with low EI, those with high EI and low shared vision were less
engaged. Those with high EI and high shared vision were more engaged.
Shared positive mood contributed to engagement. On its own, shared positive mood showed
the strongest relationship with engagement (b = .46, p < .01). EI showed no moderating effect.
EI increased the potency of perceived organizational support. On its own, perceived

organizational support related positively with engagement (b = .24, p < .01). EI amplified the
relationship (b = .16, p < .05). Compared with individuals with low EI, those with high EI and low
perceived organizational support were less engaged; those with high EI and high perceived
organizational support were more engaged.
The researchers concluded that EI alone is insufficient to increase engagement. However, the
self-management abilities within EI appear to work with shared personal vision and perceived
organizational support to activate an employees ability to commit themselves to their organization.
They attributed the low association between EI and shared positive mood to the differences in their
focus: EI reflecting our ability to be aware of and manage specific emotions, while mood reflects
more general and diffuse feeling states.
The findings encouraged the researchers to recommend that HR practitioners invest in strengthening
the conditions for engagement, and measure and develop EI, in order to strengthen their employees
capacity to engage positively in their work and their organizations.

3.5.4 Engineers Effectiveness

This study by Boyatzis, Rochford, and Cavanagh (2017) was designed to examine the relationship
between EI and peer rated effectiveness and to look at the impact of EI above and beyond that
provided by personality and general mental ability in a highly technical occupation.
The study was conducted in a multi-national manufacturing organization with 40 engineers from
the US and Northern Europe. They were rated by their peers on effectiveness, and their peers also
completed the multi-rater ESCI. Participants completed measures of personality (using the NEO-FFI,
Costa & McCrae, 1992) and general mental ability (Ravens APM, Raven, 1962). Results of multiple
regression analyses showed that:
31% of the unique variance in the engineers effectiveness was predicted by ESCI ratings.
There were no significant effects for either personality or general mental ability.
These findings strongly indicate that emotional and social competencies are important for success,
even in a highly technical field such as engineering. The authors recommended expanding the
training of engineers to include EI. They also commented that These results shed light on a very
powerful idea: People do not get convinced of things by rational arguments. People are convinced
of things by emotional arguments and then use rational arguments later to feel better about it. ESI
enables people to work together, communicate well, and help others share in the excitement about
innovations and ideas (p. 78).
3.5.5 Software managers Leadership effectiveness and leadership style

This study (Bajaj, 2013; Bajaj & Medury, 2013) investigated how emotional and social intelligence
competencies affected the leadership effectiveness of managers in a number of Indian software
organizations. Building on the strong links between EI and leadership effectivenessin particular,
transformational leadershipthe researcher explored the relationships between emotional and social
intelligence competencies, three leadership styles, and leadership outcomes.
Conducted with a number of software organizations employing at least 100 people in the National
Capital Region of India, 156 managers and their direct reports took part in and completed the ESCI
and the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) 5x (rater form).
The MLQ 5x (Bass & Avolio, 1995) assesses three leadership outcomes (effectiveness, generates
extra effort, generates satisfaction) and three leadership styles (transformational, transactional, and
passive/avoidant). Structural equation modeling was used to explore the correlations between EI and
these leadership measures.
The findings for these software managers were:
Emotional intelligence was significantly and positively related to leadership effectiveness.

55.7% of the variance in leadership effectiveness was explained by the demonstration of
emotional and social intelligence competencies. The Social awareness and Relationship
management clusters of the ESCI related most positively to leadership effectiveness. Team
members were likely to perceive supervisors with high EI to be more effective, be satisfied with
their leadership, and put in extra effort.

Emotional intelligence was significantly and positively related to use of the transformational
leadership style. 60% of the variance in transformational leadership was explained by EI,
particularly by the Social awareness and Relationship management clusters. Individuals, teams,
and organizations experiencing significant change are likely to be positively influenced by leaders
with high ratings on competencies within the Social awareness and Relationship management
clusters.
Emotional intelligence was significantly and positively related to use of the transactional
leadership style. 68% of the variance in transactional leadership was explained by the Social
awareness cluster of competenciesEmpathy and Organizational awareness. Team members
who perceived their supervisors to have high Social awareness were likely to feel rewarded and
supported for their efforts.
The Relationship management competencies were significantly negatively related to use of

the passive/avoidant leadership style. 31% of the variance in this style was explained by EI.
Relationship management related negatively to it.
This study offers a valuable insight into the cross-cultural relevance of EI and supports the case for
the assessment and development of emotional and social intelligence competencies to improve
leadership effectiveness across a range of leadership styles.
3.5.6 Business unit managers Financial performance

Tasked with building and validating a 360-degree competency-based questionnaire for use in
succession planning and management development, Ryan, Spencer, and Bernhard (2012) explored
the specific competencies that best predicted business unit profit growth in a European-based
electronic controls firm. They carried out a two-part study.
In the first part, critical incident interviews were conducted with 15 superior performing business unit
managers from the US and six European countries. Interviews were coded and analyzed, with results
showing that 12 competencies accounted for over 80% of the behaviors demonstrated by these
managers. The competencies described most frequently in the interviews included Achievement
orientation, Impact and influence, Team leadership, Interpersonal understanding, Analytical thinking,
Teamwork and cooperation, and Initiative.
In the second part of the study, questionnaire items were developed for each competency to create
a competency-based questionnaire, which was then completed by the bosses of 70 business unit
managers from North America and two European countries. The outcome measure was business unit
profit growth assessed over a two- to three-year period.
Results showed that:
Eight competencies predicted profit growth: Results of a preliminary review of the 12

competencies showed that eight of them were correlated with profit growth at levels that
exceeded the screening threshold of r2 > .05. They were Achievement orientation, Impact and
influence, Developing others, Teamwork and cooperation, Analytical thinking, Concern for quality
and order, Conceptual thinking, and Information seeking.
Eight competencies differentiated the best from the average managers: Achievement
orientation, Impact and influence, Developing others, Initiative, Interpersonal understanding,
Teamwork and cooperation, Concern for quality and order, and Conceptual thinking (p < .05).

Four competencies explained 17% of the variance in profit growth: Team leadership, Developing
others, Achievement orientation, and Impact and influence made the greatest contribution to
performance outcomes in this context.
The broad and open approach of this study revealed the significance of emotional and social
intelligence competencies to the profitability of the business units led by these managers. Of note
is that the four competencies that collectively explained 17% of the variance in profit growth are all
elements of the Self-management and Relationship management clusters within the ESCI.
3.5.7 High potential executives Performance

This research (Ryan, Emmerling, & Spencer, 2009) explored the EI competencies that predict
performance and differentiate effective executives in two different European organizations.
Study 1 explored the competencies demonstrated by managers in a professional knowledge worker

company. Two contrasting groups were formed from among a pool of managers who had previously
been identified as possibilities for promotion. Group 1 consisted of 17 managers who ultimately were
promoted while Group 2 consisted of 30 managers who were not. Prior to the promotion decision,
each manager underwent critical incident interviews (Spencer & Spencer, 1993), which were then
coded for evidence of 12 emotional, social, and cognitive intelligence competencies. Results showed
the two groups differed on 11 of the 12 competencies.
Further investigation explored the correlation with manager performance ratings for 15 managers
who had been promoted and in their new position for one year or more. Initiative and Developing
others showing the strongest relationships with overall manager ratings.
Study 2 explored the competencies demonstrated by managers in a fast-moving consumer goods

company. The company had been running a high potential program for three years and decided to
compare 44 participants competency results against another group of 62 managers who had not
participated in the program. Again, 12 emotional, social, and cognitive intelligence competencies
were measured using critical incident interviews. Ten of the 12 competencies differentiated the high
potential group of managers from the comparison group (p < .05). A subsequent study in this same
organization used structural equation modeling to examine the predictive value of competencies.
Results showed that six competencies (Achievement, Team leadership, Teamwork, Analytical thinking,
Conceptual thinking, and Expertise) explained 35% of the variance in the identification of star
performers (i.e., managers with top performance ratings over multiple years).
These multi-stage, multi-context studies confirmed the researchers confidence in the ability of
emotional, social, and cognitive intelligence competencies to differentiate superior performers from
others and to predict future performance.

3.5.8 Principals of urban schools Performance

This study (Williams, 2008) focused on a group of 20 principals from a large Midwestern United
States urban school district.
Nominations from peers and supervisors, as well as ratings from teachers, over a two-year period
were used to identify 12 outstanding and eight typical performers. Behavioral event interviews
(Spencer & Spencer, 1993) were then used to gather demonstrated behaviors, coded against 20
emotional and social intelligence competencies.
An analysis of the frequency and complexity of the competencies used by these school principals
showed significant differences between the two groups:
Outstanding school principals use more EI competencies. At least 50% of the outstanding group
demonstrated 18 competencies at least once. In contrast, the same proportion of the typical
group demonstrated only 10 competencies at least once.
Outstanding school principals use EI competencies more often. At least 25% of the outstanding
group demonstrated eight competencies 3 times. None of the typical group demonstrated any
competencies 3 times.
Twelve of the 20 competencies distinguish outstanding performance. The two groups differed
significantly in their use of Self-confidence, Self-control, Conscientiousness, Achievement
orientation, Initiative, Organizational awareness, Developing others, Leadership, Influence, Change
catalyst, Conflict management, and Teamwork/collaboration.
Six competencies stand out as the most critical differentiators. 80% to 100% of the outstanding
principals demonstrated Self-confidence, Achievement orientation, Initiative, Organizational
awareness, Leadership, and Teamwork/collaboration in at least two of their three events,
compared with only 25% of the typical group.
This study concluded that emotional and social intelligence competencies support school
principals through the demands of their leadership role. It encouraged urban school districts to
use competencies as the basis for preparing candidates for the role. It also recommended that
universities and other development providers incorporate competency assessment and development
into their programs.
3.5.9 Family businesses Next-generation leadership talent

In his doctoral dissertation, Miller (2015) investigated the development of leadership talent in family
businesses using several measures, including 44 items from the ESCI-U.
The findings revealed that:
Emotional and social intelligence as seen by others is significantly related to leadership

effectiveness among next-generation leaders of family-owned businesses ( = .64, p < .01).
Leaders who rated themselves higher on EI and SI competencies were also more engaged in
their work ( = .48, p < .01). However, those who were low in self-awareness were less engaged
( = -.21, p < .05).
The study offered a number of recommendations on how to best support the development of next-
generation family business leaders, including focusing on communication within the family and
conducting regular multi-rater assessments to ensure leaders are receiving honest feedback on how
their behaviors are perceived by others.

3.5.10 IT professionals Engagement

This study (Pittenger, 2015) addressed a concern that the engagement gap is greatest amongst
IT professionals and could be contributing to performance deficits across the industry. It explored
how EI impacts employees perceptions of their interpersonal environments and their levels of
engagement.
By approaching several professional IT associations, the study recruited over 1,000 IT professionals
working in global companies; 795 of them completed a number of surveys to measure their emotional
and social competencies, their readiness to go beyond the confines of their roles, their perceptions of
their interpersonal environments, and their levels of engagement.
A shortened version of the ESCI-U was used to gather self-report data only and limited to those
competencies that the researcher perceived most applicable to employee engagement.
The relationships between competencies and employees perceptions of their interpersonal

environment were many and complex. Following are two relevant findings that emerged from
structural equation modeling:
1 Achievement orientation had an overall positive impact on all three aspects of interpersonal
environment that were assessed. It related positively to shared vision ( = .385, p = .000),
shared compassion ( = .192, p = .000), and shared positive mood ( = .442, p = .000). The
tendency in IT professionals to overachieve seemed to relate to two things: their belief that
success is a choice, and their sense of what matters for their organizations as well as for
themselves.
2 Influencing others had an overall negative impact on all three aspects of interpersonal
environment that were assessed. It related negatively to shared vision ( = -.101, p = .000),
shared compassion ( = -.312, p = .000), and shared positive mood ( = -.138, p = .004). It was
considered that this finding aligns with research on the personality traits of IT professionals.
With a tendency to be introverted, influencing others is unlikely to appeal to most IT
professionals.
The study offered an understanding of how specific EI competencies might make a difference to IT
professionals, for whom low engagement levels can present particular concerns.
3.5.11 Community college presidents Effectiveness and employee engagement

In a PhD thesis, Babu (2016) examined the relationship between EI and success among high-level
leaders in education. Participants were 218 community college presidents who were rated by their
direct reports on nine of the ESCI competency scales and also on their perceived effectiveness. For
the purpose of this study, the ESCI competencies were grouped into two custom clusters:
Strategic leadership included Adaptability, Teamwork, Emotional self-control, Influence, and

Inspirational leadership.
Achieving goals included Achievement orientation, Coach and mentor, and Positive outlook.
Their direct reports also completed a measure of their own engagement as employees. Results of
structural equation modeling showed significant direct relationships between:
The Achieving goals competencies of the community college presidents and their effectiveness as
perceived by direct reports ( = .44, p = .001).

The Achieving goals competencies of the community college presidents and the engagement of
their direct reports ( = .14, p = .001).
The Strategic leadership competencies of the community college presidents and their
effectiveness ( = .43, p = .015), but no relationship with employee engagement.
These findings provide further support for the importance of leader EI in driving both effectiveness
and employee engagement within the highest levels of community colleges.
3.5.12 MBA students Intelligence

Academic debates continue over the relationship between EI and general intelligence, along with
claims about which is the better predictor of life and work outcomes. To explore this question,
Boyatzis, Batista-Foguet, Fernandez-i-Marin, and Truninger (2015) used a Bayesian model to study
the relationships between general intelligence (g), measured through the Graduate Management
Admission Test (GMAT), and emotional, social, and cognitive intelligence competencies, measured
by the ESCI-U, amongst a group of 624 European MBA students. They also explored differences in
relationships based on gender and type of rater: self, personal (e.g., family or friends), or professional
(e.g., workplace contacts).
As predicted, across all rater types, general intelligence related more strongly with the two cognitive
competencies in the ESCI-U than with its EI and SI competencies.
This study also exposed the extent to which peoples perceptions of EI are influenced by their context
and the expectations and attributions they employ as a result:
Personal sourcesfriends and familyobserve no relationship between EI competencies and g

nor cognitive competencies and g.
Professional sources observe a positive relationship between both cognitive competencies and EI
competencies and g for men, but a slight negative relationship between EI competencies and g
for women.
Self-assessment data show a slight negative relationship between EI competencies and g.
The researchers also noted that ratings from personal and professional sources were more similar
to one another than to self ratings. This finding supports our approach to calculating ESCI scores in
which self ratings are kept separate from aggregate total others ratings.
The authors conclude that Emotional intelligence exists at multiple levels. The behavioral level of EI
shows a different relationship to g than other levels or approaches to EI. Different people around us,
at home and at work, will see different facets of our behavior, depending on the kind of relationship
and rapport they have established. Some raters are best equipped to assess certain competencies
than others because they witness frequently the activities that elicit those behaviors (p. 11).
3.5.13 R&D leaders Innovation and organizational performance

Kendall (2016) examined the impact of leader behaviors on successful product innovation and
organizational performance among R&D leaders in high-tech companies. Participants consisted
of 105 leaders who had responsibility for delivering commercial products, each from a different
high-tech firm, the vast majority of which were operating in the US. Participants completed
self-report measures of product innovation and organizational performance, while their peers,
managers, and direct reports rated them on 10 of the ESCI competency scales, as well as completing
a measure of relational climate.

Kendall summarized the results of structural equation modeling as follows: First, we show that
leadership behaviors and relational climate influence product innovation and positively effect
operational performance. Second, we show that leadership effects performance directly and
indirectly through relational means, affirming the role of emotional intelligence in effective leadership
(Boyatzis et al., 2015a; Boyatzis et al., 2012) (p. 127).
3.5.14 Indian service industry leaders Employee well-being and engagement

Pardasani (2016) explored the impact of resonant leadershipmeasured through the ESCIon
positive outcomes for their employees. Participants consisted of 222 leaders in service industries in
India, each of whom was rated on the ESCI by one randomly selected direct report. Direct reports
also completed surveys to measure various outcomes, including well-being in the workplace, burnout,
engagement, and perceptions of organizational virtuousness. While results of structural equation
modeling showed no direct effects for leader EI on employee burnout, there were significant positive
direct effects for:
Employee engagement ( = .278, p < .05).
Employee well-being ( = .266, p < .01).
Employee perceptions of organizational virtuousness ( = .338, p < .01).
The author concluded that Findings of this research study can lend itself to various practical
implications. It underscores the importance of meeting emotional needs of the employees and suggests
resonant leadership as a strategic intervention to enhance positive states such as psychological
well-being and engagement for the employees and virtuousness for the organization (p. iv).
3.6 Criterion validity studies using the ECI or ECI-U

The ESCI has a rich research heritage that dates back over 20 years.
Much of the research on the earlier versions of the instrument can be found in the previous versions
of our technical manuals and will therefore not be duplicated here. Instead, this section provides
information on more recent studies that were conducted with the ECI and ECI-2, and their education/
university versions, and whose findings are relevant in providing support for the validity of the ESCI
and the behavioral approach to measuring EI.
3.6.1 Physicians Leadership potential

This study (Nowacki et al., 2015) focused attention on EI in the health sector, exploring the
relationships between EI and the promotion of physicians into leadership roles. The study explored
subsequent promotion of 272 physicians to formal leadership roles for up to 10 years after they
completed the 360-degree ECI-2 during a leadership development program that included formal EI
training and follow-up coaching. Results of t-tests comparing scores from those who were and were
not promoted showed that:
For the achievement of any of three possible promotions (43% of the sample), no difference in overall
ECI-2 score was observed; however, three specific competencies were higher in those promoted:
Change catalyst (p = .002), Achievement orientation (p = .01), and Self-confidence (p = .01).

For the achievement of at least two promotions (18% of the sample), the average overall ECI-2
score was higher (p = .02) and 10 specific competencies stood out: Change catalyst (p = .0003),
Self-confidence (p = .002), Influencing (p = .004), Organizational awareness (p = .007), Inspirational
leadership (p = .01), Achievement orientation (p = .02), Adaptability (p = .02), Optimism (p = .03),
Initiative (p = .04), and Conflict management (p = .05).
The exploration of participants EI scores revealed a number of other interesting findings:
No gender difference. Male and female participants showed no difference in overall ECI-2 scores,
but women did score higher than men in Conflict management (p = .03).
EI matures. Age showed significant positive associations with Empathy (p = .03), Emotional self-
awareness (p = .006), Organizational awareness (p = .0003), and Transparency (p = .006).
No role difference. Surgeons and non-surgical physicians showed no difference in overall ECI-2
scores, but non-surgical physicians scored higher in Conflict management, Change catalyst, and
Emotional self-awareness (all p = .05).
No level difference. Managers showed no difference in overall ECI-2 score compared with those
at a higher level, but they did score higher in the following specific competencies: Developing
others (p = .02), Emotional self-awareness (p = .02), and Teamwork (p = .04).
The ability to track promotions over time, and in particular to identify multiple promotions,
strengthened the researchers conclusion that emotional and social competencies are essential for
leadership success in healthcare.
3.6.2 MBA graduates Career and life satisfaction and career success
This study used longitudinal data on 266 graduates of a US MBA program. The researchers (Amdurer,
Boyatzis, Saatcioglu, Smith, & Taylor, 2014) wanted to explore how students emotional, social, and
cognitive intelligence competencies at the time of graduation would predict their later success and
satisfaction.
Building on the evidence that EI predicts effectiveness in various jobs, and in support of efforts in
higher education to equip students for their future working lives, this study was designed to offer a
long-term view of the impact of emotional, social, and cognitive competencies on important aspects
of well-being.
Competencies were measured using critical incident interviews, the 360-degree ECI-U, and the
earlier EAQ in order to gather others perceptions of graduates EI capabilities. Competencies were
examined both as composite measures of emotional intelligence (EI), social intelligence (SI), and
cognitive intelligence (CI), as well as through 12 individual subscales. The outcome measures of life
satisfaction, career satisfaction, and career success came from self-report online surveys completed
5 to 19 years after graduation.
The study provided an intriguing glimpse into how emotional and social intelligence competencies
impact individuals long-term perceptions of their personal and working lives:
What makes graduates feel successful?

Higher levels of EI predicted self-reported career success ( = .115, p < .10). Further analysis
showed that Adaptability was the strongest contributor ( = .097, p < .01) and that the SI
competency Influence reduced the sense of success ( = -.062, p < .10), as did the CI competency
Systems thinking ( = -.067, p < .10).

What makes graduates feel satisfied?

Higher levels of EI predicted career satisfaction ( = .161, p < .05) but not life satisfaction.
Again, Adaptability played the biggest part in predicting career ( = .089, p < .05) and life
satisfaction ( = .079, p < .05). Teamwork also predicted life satisfaction ( = .069, p < .10),
but Achievement orientation reduced ratings of life satisfaction ( = -.061, p < .10), as did the
SI competency Influence ( = -.071, p < .05). Influence was also a negative predictor of career
satisfaction ( = -.099, p < .01). Individuals who scored higher on CI (Pattern recognition and
Systems thinking) at graduation were subsequently lower in their ratings of life satisfaction
( = -.085, p < .05).
These complex findings challenge assumptions about the significance of specific competencies.
They suggest that graduate programs should place increased emphasis on the development of
Adaptability while continuing to build competence in Teamwork. Influence and Achievement
orientation, while believed to be important behaviors in todays complex organizations, related
negatively to individuals subsequent perceptions of their own career success. Students and new
recruits should therefore be encouraged to mitigate their potentially negative impact by increasing
their awareness of howand how oftenthey use these competencies.
This study encourages educators to raise their students understanding of their EI and SI capabilities
and help them prepare for the ways in which they are likely to be assessed and developed during
their working lives.
3.6.3 Parish vibrancy Leader effectiveness

This study (Boyatzis, Brizz, & Godwin, 2011) investigated how emotional and social intelligence
competencies contributed to church pastors effectiveness as organizational and community leaders.
Participants were 52 pastors in a Catholic diocese in Ohio who all undertook the 360-degree ECI-2.
Their parishioners were also asked to complete the Vibrant Parish Life Survey, designed to measure
their improvement in satisfaction. Parishioner support was calculated from three years worth of data
on sacramental participation (frequency of attending weekend mass) and financial donations.
Results of the studys multiple regression analyses showed that higher levels of overall ECI-2 ratings
predicted improved parishioner satisfaction ( = .418, p < .01) but not parishioner support.
Further investigation into the effects of specific competencies showed that Influence and
Transparency had significant positive effectsparishioners feel increased satisfaction when their
pastor is authentic as well as influential. However, Self-confidence had a significant negative effect
which the authors believe may indicate that a self-confident pastor is perceived as unapproachable,
lacking humility, or not role modeling servant leadership.
This study highlights the importance of emotional and social intelligence competencies in the
development of trainee priests and in their early socialization into the priesthood. Though limited by
a small number of participants, it offers insights into parishioner perceptions, suggesting the specific
competencies that impact parishioner satisfaction.
Religious leaders typically go unexamined in leadership studies, and yet their impact can be
considerable. This study of pastor emotional and social intelligence may yield useful insights for other
contexts in which people voluntarily participate.

3.6.4 Mining refinery staff Job performance

This study was published as part of a special issue of Cross Cultural Management: An International
Journal (now published as Cross Cultural and Strategic Management). Along with the other studies
in this issue, it shared insights into the demonstration, outcomes, and implications of EI in non-US
organizations. This research (Araujo & Taylor, 2012) focused on the influence of emotional and social
competence on job performance by comparing performance data with self ratings and the ratings of
others.
Probably the first study to examine these relationships in a Peruvian company, the researchers
gathered performance evaluations of all 36 staff members from three departments of a national
copper refinery to use as an outcome measure. These evaluations consisted of the refinery managers
and superintendents annual job performance ratings of each participants work organization
planning, use of abilities, interpersonal relations, results, initiative, aptitude for work, and creativity.
The 36 participants also completed the 360-degree ECI-2, along with their supervisors, peers, and
team members. Their self and total others scores were correlated against their performance ratings.
The study shared valuable findings about the relative predictive validity of self and others
assessments of EI:
Self ratings of emotional and social competence were not predictive of job performance.
Others assessments of overall emotional and social competence explained 70% of the variance
in job performance ratings.
Further analysis into the impact of specific competencies showed that four of the 18 emotional and
social competencies explained 62% of the variation in performance: Self-confidence, Achievement
orientation, Optimism, and Teamwork and collaboration.
This study provided helpful cross-cultural validation of the measurement of emotional and social
intelligence competencies and encouraged other researchers to explore EI with larger groups of
employees in other Peruvian organizations. However, it strongly recommended that self ratings
should not be used as a means to interpret individual competence or to predict workplace
performance.
3.6.5 Public company executives Managerial performance

This study was published as part of a special issue of the Journal of Management Development.
Along with the other studies in this issue, it provided insights into the measurement of competencies
to explore how EI behaviors relate to work performance. This research (Ramo, Saris, & Boyatzis,
2009) compared the predictive validity of emotional and social competencies with that of universal
personality dimensions.
The study was carried out with the cooperation of three medium-sized Spanish public companies.
Two of these companies represented the interests of trade, industrial, and service organizations
within their regions and one represented an energy sector institution. Ninety-six employees
completed Spanish language versions of the 360-degree ECI-2 and the NEO-FFI, a short version
of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory, which measures the Big Five personality domains:
Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness (Costa & McCrae, 1992).

The researchers chose to group the competencies by the three social motives (McClelland &
Burnham, 1976). They also identified a group of competencies related to being aware of ones own
and others emotions. The competencies of the ECI-2 were therefore organized into custom clusters
as follows:
Power cluster: Achievement orientation, Initiative, Optimism, Change catalyst.
Achievement cluster: Developing others, Conflict management, Influence, Inspirational leadership.
Affiliation cluster: Adaptability, Transparency, Service orientation, Teamwork and collaboration.
Awareness cluster: Self-confidence, Emotional self-awareness, Empathy, Emotional self-control.
Performance was scored from the nominations of their bosses and peers in response to the question:
If you were going to create and run your own company, which individuals would you take with you?
Analyses were run on various combinations of competencies and personality domains, resulting in a
model of their relationships to performance and a number of specific findings:
Overall EI scores had significant predictive value beyond that provided by personality
measures (R2 change = .276).
Some competency clusters showed stronger relationships with performance than others. The
Power competencies provided the strongest predictor (r = .728, p < .01), followed by Achievement
(r = .274, p < .01), and then Affiliation (r = .222, p < .05). There was no significant correlation
between performance and the Awareness cluster.
Specific competencies which predicted performance were found in the Power and Achievement
clusters. Inspirational leadership, Developing others, Change catalyst, Influence, Organizational
awareness, and Achievement all had significant (p < .01) correlations with performance.
Adaptability, Conflict management, Initiative, and Service orientation also contributed (p < .05).
Self-confidence can potentially have a negative effect on performance. Results of a LISREL

analysis demonstrated that when associated with other competencies, the contribution of Self-
confidence was positive. However, on its ownperhaps demonstrated as overconfidenceits
effect on performance was negative.
This study was carried out alongside a development program that included 360-degree competency
assessment, two training sessions on emotional and social competencies, and one-to-one coaching
conversations around the competency feedback. It supported the business case for behaviorally
focused EI developmentthe links to performance indicating that EI feedback and development
provide a better return on investment than the assessment of personality. It also highlighted
competencies of specific value in this context.

3.6.6 Aircrew and maintenance teams Team performance

This study was published as part of a special issue of the Journal of Management Development.
Along with the other studies in this issue, it provided insights into the competencies that relate
to performance in various occupations and how they can be developed. This research (Koman &
Wolff, 2008) examined the relationships between team leader EI, team level EI, which the authors
define as The ability of a team to generate operating norms that increase awareness of emotion
and management of behavior in ways that have positive emotional consequences (p. 58), and team
performance.
Sixty-four aircrew and maintenance teams from a US military organization took part in the research.
Team leader EI was measured using the 360-degree ECI-2, with ratings from peers, supervisors, and
team members. Team level EI was assessed using the Group Emotional Intelligence measure (Hamme,
2003), with which team members rated their teams behavior against nine emotionally competent
group norms. Outcome measures were based on subjective and objective performance measures
that were gathered and combined. Senior officers above each team provided ratings of the teams
effectiveness against multiple criteria, while objective measures included such things as number of
accidents, percentage of flight objectives met, and percentage of raw material waste.
Results of structural equation modeling revealed the way in which leader EI impacted team EI and
team performance: Specifically, it was found that awareness norms contribute to the development of
regulation norms and that the regulation norms are related to performance On the individual level,
one cannot have a regulation of emotions without having an awareness of their emotions first. It is
logical that the same relationship would be present with the group level emotional intelligence; the
group has an awareness of the emotion, which leads to the ability to regulate it (p. 68).
The researchers point out that this military context creates a culture in which the outcome of a teams
work has very different consequences to those in a business context. However, this study offers a
valuable focus on the importance of leaders emotional and social competence. It shows how leaders
EI not only increases their own performance, but can also influence both the performance and the
emotional competence of their team members at the group level.
It raises an interesting question about how a leaders impact on their teams climate might also
affect group EI. The study promotes EI competency and group norm development, describing the
multiplying effect that could result from cascading emotional and social intelligence competencies
from the leadership at the top of an organization down through its managers and teams.

3.6.7 Financial services executives Effectiveness and engagement

In her 2013 PhD thesis, Van Oosten looked at the relationship between emotional intelligence
competencies and effectiveness, using a sample of 85 senior leaders at a Fortune 500 financial
services organization in the US. Participants were involved in an EI development program that also
included multi-rater feedback using the ECI-2 and executive coaching. Effectiveness was assessed
using the participants annual performance ratings from their managers as well as self-reported
engagement, career satisfaction, and personal vision. Raters for the ECI-2 included the participants
managers, direct reports, peers, clients, and others.
For the purposes of this study, 12 of the 18 ECI-2 competencies were used in the final analyses and
they were grouped into two custom clusters as follows:
Emotional acumen included Accurate self-assessment, Empathy, Emotional self-awareness,

Emotional self-control, Transparency, Teamwork and collaboration, and Optimism.
Change leader included Achievement, Change catalyst, Initiative, Inspirational leadership, and
Self-confidence.
Results of structural equation modeling showed the following significant direct relationships between
the Change leader competencies of the executives and their:
Annual performance ratings ( = .37, p < .001).
Self-rated engagement ( = .254, p < .05).
Results were interpreted as support for previous studies showing the impact of EI on performance
outcomes. Regarding the additional link to leader engagement, the author suggests that A potential
explanation for the empirical link to performance and engagement might be that leaders who
have high EI are more engaged because they know themselves well and have chosen roles and
organizations that provide a good fit (Van Oosten, 2013, p. 63).

4. Developing EI and SI
Given their robust relationships with performance, engagement,

effectiveness, and other outcomes, EI and SI competencies clearly make
a difference in work and educational settings. Fortunately, research by
Boyatzis and others demonstrates that adults can dramatically improve
their EI and SI competencies even in 12 years.
A series of 39 longitudinal studies conducted at the Weatherhead School of Management, Case
Western Reserve University from 1987present show that when adults participate in a leadership
development course focused on EI and SI and designed on the basis of Boyatzis Intentional Change
Theory (Boyatzis, 2008), the dramatic improvements last for 57 years (Boyatzis, 2008; Boyatzis,
Stubbs, & Taylor, 2002; Boyatzis & Cavanagh, in press). Other studies of this course have been done
at ESADE (Barcelona) and Ca Foscari (University of Venice).
The impact of this course shows an increase of 61% of emotional and social intelligence (ESI) over
12 years after entry into an MBA program and taking the course for full-time students. For part-time
MBAs, the impact is slightly less at 54% over the 35 years after taking the course. Two of the part-
time MBA cohorts were assessed two years after graduation and showed sustained improvement
of 54% (Boyatzis, 2008). The dramatic improvement in ESI was also found from this course in older
professionals in special executive programs (Ballou, Bowers, Boyatzis, & Kolb, 1999).
In contrast, eight above-average MBA programs showed about 3% improvement 12 years after entry,
and some training programs in industry or government showed 11% improvement 318 months after
the programs (Boyatzis, 2008; Cherniss & Adler, 2000, from a study of best practices over the last 50
years from the Consortium on Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations).
The components of the leadership development course studied at Case Western Reserve University
are: (1) helping the participant build a personal vision; (2) helping the participant see how they
enact EI and SI competencies with others from 360-degree results and coded videotaped group
simulations, thereby developing a personal balance sheet; (3) development of a learning agenda
and plan; (4) experimentation and practice of the new behavior, thoughts, and feelings; and (5)
development of a set of resonant relationships that foster and nurture change over time. Three
particularly distinctive components of the course that may contribute to its success are: (1) creation
of a personal vision before any assessment is viewed; (2) discussing ones vision with a coach
trained in coaching with compassion (i.e., coaching to the Positive Emotional Attractor [PEA]); and
(3) development of peer coaching groups. The coaching to the PEA has been shown to result in
development of a more comprehensive and deeper personal vision, as well as sustained behavior
change (Mosteo, Batista-Foguet, McKeever, & Serlavos, 2016).
This program of research, which offers insight into effective coaching and leadership development
for EI and SI, provides a reminder that adults learn what they want to learn (Boyatzis, 2002; Boyatzis
et al., 2002; Boyatzis, Smith, & Blaize, 2006; Boyatzis, 2008). Our learning process, as adults, is a
self-directed one, driven by our perception of the person we want to be. Moments of awareness,
urgency, or discontinuity often trigger the process of self-directed learning (Boyatzis, 2002). ESCI
feedback supports self-directed learning by offering participants choices in the behaviors they want
to developchoices that are relevant to their aspirations and preferences, and to the demands of
leadership and professional roles.

5. Differences in EI and SI scores by key demographic variables
The size of the ESCI databasecontaining data from professionals and

leaders in a wide range of roles, at different levels, in organizations in
many different countriesprovides the opportunity to quantify and
explore notable and interesting differences between participant groups.
These scoring differences are reported in the following tables:
Table 11. Effect sizes for self compared to total others scores
Table 12. Effect sizes for manager scores compared to other rater groups
Table 13. Effect sizes by region compared to the global norm
Table 14. Effect sizes by country of residence
Table 15. Effect sizes by country of residence compared to the global norm
Table 16. Effect sizes by age compared to the global norm
Table 17. Effect sizes by gender
Table 18. Effect sizes by job family
Table 19. Effect sizes by job family compared to the global norm
Table 20. Effect sizes by job level compared to the global norm
Table 21. Effect sizes for self compared to total others raw values by job level
Table 22. Effect sizes for self compared to total others absolute values by job level
Table 23. Effect sizes by industry
Table 24. Effect sizes by industry compared to the global norm
Cohens d (for independent samples) and Cohens dz (for paired samples) are reported as a ready
comparison of the standardized difference between mean scores. Effect sizes with a Cohens d of 0.2
are considered small, 0.5 medium, and 0.8 large.

Do people score themselves differently from their raters?

Paired sample t-tests were carried out to look at differences between participants self scores and
their total others scores. The findings show that self scores for Emotional self-control are lower than
those from other raters by a small amount. However, the gaps between self and total others scores
can be in either direction, minimizing the differences between mean scores. When viewed as absolute
gaps, the differences between self and total others scores were notably larger.
This reinforces the importance of gathering 360-degree feedback to ensure that individuals have the
opportunity to understand others perceptions of their EI competencies.
Effect sizes for self compared to total others scores

Negative figures indicate that participants self scores are lower than total others scores.
Table 11. Effect sizes for self compared to total others scores
Effect sizes (Cohens dz) for self compared to

total others (N = 65,559)
Competency
Raw gaps Absolute gaps
Achievement orientation 0.08 1.25
Adaptability -0.06 1.30
Coach and mentor 0.01 1.28
Conflict management 0.09 1.27
Emotional self-awareness 0.01 1.30
Emotional self-control -0.34 1.28
Empathy 0.06 1.28
Influence -0.09 1.29
Inspirational leadership 0.02 1.27
Organizational awareness -0.05 1.28
Positive outlook 0.05 1.29
Teamwork 0.13 1.26
Average effect size -0.01 1.28

Do different rater groups score differently?

Paired sample t-tests were carried out to look at differences between manager scores and those
of other rater groups. Manager scores were used as the comparison, as they tend to be the lowest
scores. Negative figures indicate that a rater groups scores are higher than managers.
The findings show that:
Team members provide higher ratings than managers on Adaptability by a small amount.
Customers provide higher ratings than managers on all competencies by a small amount, except
Achievement orientation and Emotional self-awareness.
Others provide higher ratings than managers by a small amount on Adaptability, Coach and
mentor, Empathy, Inspirational leadership, Influence, and Organizational awareness.
Effect sizes for manager scores compared to other rater groups

Negative figures indicate that manager scores are lower than those of other rater groups.
Table 12. Effect sizes for manager scores compared to other rater groups
Effect sizes (Cohens dz) for manager scores compared to other

rater groups
Competency Team member Peer Others Customers

scores scores scores scores
n = 43,335 n = 48,928 n = 30,020 n = 16,990
Achievement orientation -0.09 0.02 -0.13 -0.17
Adaptability -0.24 -0.06 -0.23 -0.30
Coach and mentor -0.17 -0.06 -0.23 -0.39
Conflict management 0.06 0.06 -0.10 -0.22
Emotional self-awareness 0.02 -0.02 -0.13 -0.19
Emotional self-control -0.15 -0.02 -0.19 -0.37
Empathy -0.06 -0.03 -0.22 -0.40
Influence -0.14 -0.07 -0.23 -0.33
Inspirational leadership -0.12 -0.02 -0.24 -0.32
Organizational awareness -0.16 -0.09 -0.24 -0.30
Positive outlook -0.17 0.03 -0.18 -0.30
Teamwork -0.07 0.07 -0.14 -0.26

Does region affect raters scores?

Average total others scores from seven regions were compared with the global norm. The findings
show that participants from:
North and Central America exceeded the global norm by a small amount on all competencies
except Coach and mentor.
Europe were lower by a small amount on Emotional self-awareness and Positive outlook.
Asia were lower by a moderate amount on all competencies except Emotional self-awareness.
South America were lower by a small amount on Conflict management, Emotional self-control,
Influence, and Organizational awareness.
Africa were lower by a small amount on all competencies except Achievement orientation,
Inspirational leadership, and Positive outlook.
The Middle East were lower by a small amount on Emotional self-control.
Australia scored consistently with the global norm.
Effect sizes by region

Negative figures indicate that a regions scores are lower than the global norm.
Table 13. Effect sizes by region compared to the global norm
Regional effect sizes (Cohens d) compared to the global norm
Competency N&C South Middle

America Europe Asia America Africa East Australia
n = 27,174 n = 17,498 n = 12,751 n = 1,135 n = 1,356 n = 1,001 n = 3,486
Achievement orientation 0.29 -0.07 -0.50 -0.02 -0.16 -0.04 0.03
Adaptability 0.28 -0.13 -0.40 -0.08 -0.32 -0.08 0.10
Coach and mentor 0.18 -0.13 -0.20 -0.01 -0.24 0.11 0.07
Conflict management 0.26 -0.15 -0.32 -0.24 -0.20 0.01 0.07
Emotional self-awareness 0.27 -0.30 -0.10 0.08 -0.29 -0.13 -0.08
Emotional self-control 0.28 -0.08 -0.40 -0.27 -0.42 -0.24 0.10
Empathy 0.23 -0.17 -0.23 -0.12 -0.20 0.11 0.02
Influence 0.28 -0.17 -0.37 -0.25 -0.21 0.06 0.08
Inspirational leadership 0.22 -0.18 -0.23 0.01 -0.06 0.13 0.04
Organizational awareness 0.29 -0.10 -0.45 -0.24 -0.26 -0.01 0.12
Positive outlook 0.28 -0.21 -0.30 -0.05 -0.11 -0.03 0.07
Teamwork 0.26 -0.10 -0.40 -0.05 -0.20 0.09 0.06
Mean effect size 0.26 -0.15 -0.33 -0.10 -0.22 0.00 0.06
Median effect size 0.27 -0.14 -0.35 -0.07 -0.21 0.00 0.07

Does country of residence affect raters scores?

Average total others scores by country of residence were compared with the global norm. Effect
sizes are reported for 21 countries: those with at least 300 participants and an appropriate level of
diversity in clients.
Table 14. Effect sizes by country of residence
Country Country effect sizes (Cohens d) compared to the global norm
US Higher by a small amount on all competencies.

Canada Higher by a small amount on Adaptability, Influence, and Organizational
awareness.
Mexico Lower by a moderate amount on Influence and by a small amount on all others
except Inspirational leadership and Positive outlook.
Brazil Lower by a small amount on Conflict management, Empathy, Emotional self-
control, Influence, and Organizational awareness.
South Africa Lower by a small amount on all competencies.
UAE Consistent with the global norm on all competencies.
Australia Consistent with the global norm on all competencies.
China Lower by a moderate amount on Achievement orientation and Organizational
awareness, and by a small amount on Adaptability, Conflict management,
Empathy, Emotional self-control, Influence, and Teamwork.
Hong Kong Lower by a small amount on all competencies except Coach and mentor, Empathy,
Emotional self-awareness, and Influence.
India Lower by a small amount on Achievement orientation, Adaptability, Coach and
mentor, Emotional self-awareness, Emotional self-control, and Teamwork.
Japan Lower by a large amount on all competencies.
Belgium Lower by a large amount on Emotional self-awareness and by a small amount on
all other competencies.
France Lower by a large amount on Emotional self-awareness, by a moderate amount on
Positive outlook, and by a small amount on all other competencies.
Germany Lower by a small amount on Emotional self-awareness, Inspirational leadership,
and Organizational awareness.
Greece Lower by a moderate amount on Conflict management, Inspirational leadership,
Influence, and Positive outlook, and by a small amount on all others except
Emotional self-awareness.
Italy Lower by a small amount on Emotional self-awareness, Emotional self-control,
Inspirational leadership, Influence, and Positive outlook.
The Lower by a small amount on Emotional self-control and Positive outlook, and by a
Netherlands moderate amount on all other competencies.
Poland Lower by a moderate amount on Conflict management and Inspirational
leadership, and by a small amount on all others except Adaptability and Emotional
self-control.
Spain Lower by a moderate amount on Influence and Positive outlook, and by a small
amount on all other competencies.
Turkey Lower by a moderate amount on Positive outlook and by a small amount on
Achievement orientation, Conflict management, Empathy, Emotional self-control,
Inspirational leadership, and Teamwork.
UK Consistent with the global norm on all competencies.

Effect sizes by country of residence

Negative figures indicate that a countrys scores are lower than the global norm.
Table 15. Effect sizes by country of residence compared to the global norm
Country effect sizes (d) compared to the global norm

Competency US Canada Mexico Brazil S Africa UAE Australia
n = 25,662 n = 684 n = 783 n = 668 n = 811 n = 440 n = 3,486
Achievement orientation 0.31 0.16 -0.23 -0.11 -0.19 0.04 0.03
Adaptability 0.30 0.21 -0.31 -0.15 -0.39 0.05 0.10
Coach and mentor 0.19 0.15 -0.20 -0.14 -0.36 0.15 0.07
Conflict management 0.29 0.13 -0.37 -0.40 -0.27 -0.02 0.07
Emotional self-awareness 0.29 0.08 -0.29 0.10 -0.30 -0.09 -0.08
Emotional self-control 0.30 0.13 -0.39 -0.39 -0.44 -0.12 0.10
Empathy 0.25 0.15 -0.35 -0.27 -0.27 0.18 0.02
Influence 0.31 0.23 -0.54 -0.33 -0.25 0.15 0.08
Inspirational leadership 0.23 0.15 -0.18 -0.17 -0.13 0.14 0.04
Organizational awareness 0.31 0.20 -0.39 -0.41 -0.30 0.06 0.12
Positive outlook 0.30 0.15 -0.14 -0.18 -0.15 0.11 0.07
Teamwork 0.28 0.16 -0.26 -0.13 -0.30 0.17 0.06
Mean effect size 0.28 0.16 -0.30 -0.22 -0.28 0.07 0.06
Median effect size 0.29 0.15 -0.30 -0.17 -0.28 0.08 0.07

Competency China Hong Kong India Japan
n = 6,537 n = 530 n = 1,403 n = 834
Achievement orientation -0.60 -0.34 -0.32 -0.91
Adaptability -0.40 -0.27 -0.26 -1.10
Coach and mentor -0.07 -0.17 -0.25 -1.11
Conflict management -0.26 -0.27 -0.19 -0.86
Emotional self-awareness 0.07 -0.06 -0.21 -1.05
Emotional self-control -0.34 -0.22 -0.45 -0.98
Empathy -0.20 -0.11 -0.13 -0.82
Influence -0.46 -0.18 0.02 -1.03
Inspirational leadership -0.11 -0.37 -0.03 -1.04
Organizational awareness -0.52 -0.34 -0.15 -1.27
Positive outlook -0.18 -0.33 0.01 -1.39
Teamwork -0.43 -0.22 -0.20 -1.27
Mean effect size -0.29 -0.24 -0.18 -1.07
Median effect size -0.30 -0.24 -0.20 -1.05
58 Korn Ferry 2017. All rights reserved. Table 15

continues
Table 15. continued

Competency Belgium France Germany Greece Italy
n = 366 n = 555 n = 740 n = 539 n = 642
Achievement orientation -0.33 -0.20 0.08 -0.41 0.02
Adaptability -0.41 -0.23 0.00 -0.41 -0.18
Coach and mentor -0.43 -0.30 -0.18 -0.38 -0.18
Conflict management -0.35 -0.36 -0.06 -0.67 -0.12
Emotional self-awareness -0.92 -1.03 -0.41 -0.06 -0.35
Emotional self-control -0.31 -0.44 0.10 -0.43 -0.28
Empathy -0.39 -0.29 -0.16 -0.37 -0.16
Influence -0.43 -0.39 -0.15 -0.77 -0.42
Inspirational leadership -0.43 -0.23 -0.35 -0.63 -0.21
Organizational awareness -0.41 -0.36 -0.21 -0.35 -0.18
Positive outlook -0.42 -0.58 -0.09 -0.75 -0.24
Teamwork -0.34 -0.32 -0.07 -0.24 -0.07
Mean effect size -0.43 -0.39 -0.13 -0.46 -0.20
Median effect size -0.41 -0.34 -0.12 -0.41 -0.18

Competency Netherlands Poland Spain Turkey UK
n = 1,215 n = 484 n = 1,451 n = 933 n = 8,866
Achievement orientation -0.50 -0.23 -0.26 -0.20 0.06
Adaptability -0.71 -0.08 -0.34 -0.17 0.03
Coach and mentor -0.58 -0.23 -0.18 0.01 -0.01
Conflict management -0.49 -0.56 -0.33 -0.41 0.04
Emotional self-awareness -0.85 0.23 -0.39 0.01 -0.16
Emotional self-control -0.39 -0.14 -0.34 -0.41 0.07
Empathy -0.59 -0.34 -0.35 -0.24 -0.04
Influence -0.58 -0.22 -0.68 -0.16 0.08
Organizational awareness -0.48 -0.31 -0.40 -0.02 0.07
Teamwork -0.58 -0.26 -0.34 -0.29 0.03
Mean effect size -0.57 -0.26 -0.36 -0.23 0.01
Median effect size -0.58 -0.25 -0.34 -0.22 0.03

Does participant age affect raters scores?

Average total others scores for participants in different age groups were compared with the global
norm. The findings show that:
For participants in their 30s to 50s, there were no noticeable differences from the global norm.
Participants in their 20s scored higher by a small amount on Adaptability.
Participants in their 60s scored higher by a small amount on Conflict management, Emotional
self-control, Influence, and Inspirational leadership. However, effects from this age group should
be interpreted with caution, given the relatively small sample size.
Effect sizes by age

Negative figures indicate that scores are lower than the global norm.
Table 16. Effect sizes by age compared to the global norm
Age effect sizes (Cohens d) compared to the global norm

Competency 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+ years
n = 5,340 n = 20,099 n = 20,585 n = 10,093 n = 1,506
Achievement orientation 0.20 0.07 -0.04 -0.08 -0.04
Adaptability 0.01 0.04 -0.01 -0.02 0.07
Coach and mentor -0.09 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.13
Conflict management -0.19 -0.03 0.03 0.12 0.32
Emotional self-awareness 0.14 0.03 -0.03 -0.02 0.19
Emotional self-control -0.02 -0.02 -0.01 0.07 0.21
Empathy 0.08 0.01 -0.03 0.01 0.19
Influence -0.09 -0.02 0.02 0.06 0.21
Inspirational leadership -0.11 -0.02 0.03 0.06 0.20
Organizational awareness -0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.06 0.21
Positive outlook 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.14
Teamwork 0.09 0.02 -0.02 0.01 0.14
Mean effect size 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.16
Median effect size 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.01 0.19

Do men and women score differently?

The most recent research from Korn Ferry Hay Group (2016) indicates that women score higher than
men on 11 of the 12 ESCI competencies. Based on a review of ESCI data gathered between 2011 and 2015
from 55,000 professionals across 90 countries and all levels of management, the research found that:
The greatest difference between men and women can be seen in Emotional self-awareness:
women are 86% more likely than men to be seen as using the competency consistently (18.4% of
women demonstrate the competency consistently compared to 9.9% of men).
Women are 45% more likely than men to be seen as demonstrating Empathy consistently.
Other competencies in which women outperform men are Coach and mentor, Influence,
Inspirational leadership, Conflict management, Organizational awareness, Adaptability, Teamwork,
and Achievement orientation.
The smallest margin of difference is in Positive outlook: women are 9% more likely to exhibit the
competency consistently than men.
Emotional self-control is the only competency in which men and women showed equal
performance.
These findings, and their implications for how women and men use their EI competencies to increase
their own effectiveness and the performance of others, have attracted considerable interest globally:
Historically, in the workplace, there has been a tendency for women to evaluate themselves as less
competent as compared to others, while men tend to overrate themselves in their competencies.
Research shows, however, that the reality is often the opposite. If more men acted like women in
employing their emotional and social competencies, they would be substantially and distinctly more

effective in their work.
Richard Boyatzis Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western
Reserve University

Effect sizes by gender

With slightly updated and larger data, we continue to see similar results. Women scored higher than
men by a small amount on Emotional self-awareness, Achievement orientation, Conflict management,
Empathy, Teamwork, and Organizational awareness.
Table 17. Effect sizes by gender
Competency Effect sizes (Cohens d) by gender

n = 24,992 women, n = 36,332 men
Achievement orientation 0.29
Adaptability 0.14
Coach and mentor 0.13
Conflict management 0.28
Emotional self-awareness 0.43
Emotional self-control 0.01
Empathy 0.26
Influence 0.18
Inspirational leadership 0.15
Organizational awareness 0.23
Positive outlook 0.09
Teamwork 0.25
Mean effect size 0.20
Median effect size 0.20
The data suggest a strong need for more women in the workforce to take on leadership roles. When
you factor in the correlation between high emotional intelligence and those leaders who deliver better
business results, there is a strong case for gender equity. Organizations must find ways to identify

women who score highly on these competencies, and empower them.
Daniel Goleman Co-director of the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations, and author of
Working with Emotional Intelligence

Does participant job type affect raters scores?

Average total others scores for participants in different job families were compared with the global
norm. Job families are not reported if they contain fewer than 300 participants. Samples were
weighted, where needed, to ensure that no organization exceeded 15% of each job family benchmark.
Job families where the average effect size across all competencies was equal to or greater than
d = .20 were reviewed by gender and country of residence to determine if they deviated substantially
from the global norm. These observations are noted in Table 18.
Table 18. Effect sizes by job family
Job family Job family effect sizes (Cohens d) compared to the global norm
Management Consistent with the global norm on all competencies.
Sales Consistent with the global norm on all competencies.
Finance & Accounting Lower by a small amount on Inspirational leadership.
Human Resources Consistent with the global norm on all competencies.
Manufacturing / Lower by a small amount on all competencies except Coach and mentor
Production and Inspirational leadership.
Note: Lower scores may be partly due to the demographic profile of this
job family, which is underrepresented by two groups who tend to score
higher: women (17% vs. 41% in the global norm) and participants from
the US (24% vs. 38% in the global norm). Participants from China, who
tend to score lower, are overrepresented in this sample (25% vs. 10% in
the global norm).
Administration / Support Higher by a small amount on Empathy, Emotional self-awareness,

Organizational awareness, and Teamwork.
Information Technology Consistent with the global norm on all competencies.
Marketing Lower by a small amount on Conflict management.
Engineering Lower by a small amount on Emotional self-awareness.
Project Management Lower by a small amount on Conflict management.
Logistics / Supply Chain Lower by a small amount on Conflict management, Empathy, Emotional
self-awareness, Emotional self-control, Inspirational leadership,
Research & Development Consistent with the global norm on all competencies.
Quality Assurance Consistent with the global norm on all competencies.
Table 18
continues
Table 18. continued
Job family Job family effect sizes (Cohens d) compared to the global norm
Legal Higher by a small amount on Achievement orientation, Adaptability,

Coach and mentor, Empathy, Emotional self-control, Influence,
Note: Higher scores may be due in part to the demographic profile of

this job family, which is overrepresented by two groups who tend to
score higher: women (51% vs. 41% in the global norm) and participants
from the US (51% vs. 38% in the global norm).
Risk, Regulatory & Higher by a small amount on Emotional self-control.

Compliance
Physician Higher by a small to medium amount on all competencies.
Note: 84% of the participants in this job family are from the US, so these
results may not generalize to other regions or countries.
Educator Higher by a medium amount on all competencies and by a large amount

on Conflict management.
Note: 93% of the participants in this job family are from the UK (50%)
or US (43%), so these results may not generalize to other regions or
countries. Higher scores among Educators may also be due in part to
the overrepresentation of women in this job family (61% vs. 41% in the
global norm).
MBA / Exec MBA Higher by a medium amount on all competencies except Conflict
Students management.
Note: 81% of the participants in this job family are from the US, so these
results may not generalize to other regions or countries.

Effect sizes by job family

Negative figures indicate that scores are lower than the global norm. To ensure no single organization
exceeded 15% of the job family benchmark, the samples for Sales, Finance & Accounting, Information
Technology, Project Management, and Risk, Regulatory & Compliance were weighted.
Table 19. Effect sizes by job family compared to the global norm
Job family effect sizes (d) compared to the global norm

Competency Managers Sales F&A HR Mfg Admin
n = 5,253 n = 5,722 n = 5,446 n = 4,484 n = 2,629 n = 3,978
Achievement orientation -0.02 -0.10 -0.03 0.03 -0.28 0.18
Adaptability 0.04 -0.13 -0.01 -0.08 -0.26 0.19
Coach and mentor -0.01 -0.04 -0.12 0.09 -0.17 0.17
Conflict management -0.03 -0.14 -0.12 0.15 -0.23 0.18
Emotional self-awareness -0.09 -0.06 -0.08 0.19 -0.28 0.22
Emotional self-control -0.05 -0.18 -0.03 0.03 -0.29 0.19
Empathy -0.10 -0.07 -0.07 0.17 -0.32 0.21
Influence 0.05 -0.01 -0.12 0.06 -0.38 0.16
Inspirational leadership 0.16 -0.04 -0.20 -0.04 -0.17 0.18
Organizational awareness -0.03 -0.08 -0.07 0.07 -0.35 0.22
Positive outlook 0.19 -0.01 -0.19 0.04 -0.22 0.19
Teamwork -0.08 -0.14 -0.05 0.13 -0.31 0.21
Mean effect size 0.00 -0.08 -0.09 0.07 -0.27 0.19
Median effect size -0.02 -0.08 -0.08 0.07 -0.28 0.19

Competency IT Mktg Engr Proj Mgt Logistics R&D
n = 2,599 n = 3,737 n = 1,096 n = 912 n = 666 n = 1,887
Achievement orientation -0.07 -0.11 -0.02 0.01 -0.11 -0.12
Adaptability 0.01 -0.07 0.00 0.07 -0.14 -0.13
Coach and mentor -0.01 -0.11 -0.05 0.12 -0.18 -0.12
Conflict management -0.10 -0.24 -0.15 -0.25 -0.26 -0.06
Emotional self-awareness -0.07 -0.02 -0.27 -0.05 -0.27 -0.14
Emotional self-control 0.07 -0.13 0.07 0.04 -0.20 -0.07
Empathy -0.05 -0.08 -0.12 0.00 -0.32 -0.13
Influence -0.02 -0.08 -0.11 0.06 -0.19 -0.23
Inspirational leadership -0.13 -0.15 -0.16 -0.13 -0.23 -0.12
Organizational awareness -0.04 -0.08 -0.08 0.01 -0.23 -0.22
Positive outlook -0.08 -0.03 -0.14 -0.08 -0.16 -0.15
Teamwork 0.01 -0.05 -0.01 0.14 -0.23 -0.11
Mean effect size -0.04 -0.10 -0.09 -0.01 -0.21 -0.13
Median effect size -0.04 -0.08 -0.09 0.01 -0.21 -0.13
Table 19 Korn Ferry 2017. All rights reserved. 65
continues
Table 19. continued
Competency MBA
QA Legal Regul Physician Educator Student
n = 433 n = 661 n = 370 n = 643 n = 1,105 n = 1,427
Achievement orientation 0.09 0.20 0.06 0.62 0.66 0.45
Adaptability 0.00 0.26 0.04 0.44 0.51 0.38
Coach and mentor 0.04 0.28 0.05 0.47 0.54 0.26
Conflict management 0.05 0.14 -0.03 0.60 0.85 0.13
Emotional self-awareness 0.00 0.17 0.05 0.67 0.66 0.34
Emotional self-control 0.05 0.32 0.21 0.45 0.56 0.29
Empathy 0.03 0.34 0.09 0.54 0.60 0.36
Influence -0.03 0.34 0.05 0.55 0.63 0.29
Inspirational leadership 0.01 0.07 -0.09 0.56 0.68 0.20
Organizational awareness -0.01 0.30 0.07 0.47 0.57 0.35
Positive outlook -0.02 -0.06 -0.15 0.42 0.59 0.36
Teamwork 0.11 0.30 0.16 0.44 0.56 0.36
Mean effect size 0.03 0.22 0.04 0.52 0.62 0.31
Median effect size 0.02 0.27 0.05 0.50 0.59 0.34

Does participant job level affect raters scores?

Average total others scores for participants at different organizational levels were compared with the
global norm. The findings show that:
Entry level individual contributors scored lower than the global norm by a small amount on
Coach and mentor, Conflict management, and Inspirational leadership. They scored higher by a
small amount on Emotional self-awareness. (Please note this group is small relative to the overall
sample.)
Scores are consistent with the global norm for Mid- and Senior level individual contributors, and
for First, Mid-, and Senior level managers and leaders. However, effects from this group should be
interpreted with caution, given the relatively small sample size.
Effect sizes by job level

Negative figures indicate that scores are lower than the global norm.
Table 20. Effect sizes by job level compared to the global norm
Job level effect sizes (Cohens d) compared to the global norm
Senior
Competency Entry level Mid-level level Senior
individual individual individual First level Mid-level level
contributor contributor contributor leader leader leader
n = 2,028 n = 6,477 n = 5,991 n = 9,895 n = 16,967 n = 18,693
Achievement orientation 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.01 -0.02 -0.05
Adaptability -0.15 0.02 0.09 -0.01 0.01 0.03
Coach and mentor -0.20 -0.02 0.08 0.01 0.04 0.01
Conflict management -0.27 -0.14 0.02 0.08 0.06 0.03
Emotional self-awareness 0.20 0.18 0.19 0.01 -0.04 -0.08
Emotional self-control -0.03 0.07 0.09 0.01 0.00 -0.02
Empathy 0.13 0.16 0.17 0.04 -0.03 -0.09
Influence -0.19 -0.02 0.11 -0.04 0.00 0.05
Inspirational leadership -0.22 -0.15 -0.01 -0.04 0.02 0.12
Organizational awareness -0.13 0.06 0.14 -0.01 -0.01 0.00
Positive outlook 0.01 -0.01 0.01 -0.10 -0.03 0.12
Teamwork 0.07 0.15 0.15 0.04 -0.01 -0.09
Mean effect size -0.06 0.04 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00
Median effect size -0.08 0.04 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.00

Does the gap between self and total others scores vary by job level?
The mean gaps between self and average total others scores for participants at different job levels
were investigated. While absolute gaps (i.e., the difference between self vs. total others ratings,
regardless of the direction of the difference) were both large and relatively consistent across job
levels, raw gaps (i.e., self ratings minus total others ratings) were not. The findings show that on
average:
Individual contributors and First level leaders score themselves slightly lower than others.
Senior level leaders score themselves higher than others, particularly those who are low in
Emotional self-awareness.
Effect sizes for self compared to total others scores by job level
Raw gap sizes: negative figures indicate that participants self scores are lower than total others scores.
Table 21. Effect sizes for self compared to total others raw values by job level
Effect sizes (dz) for self compared to total others raw values by job level
Senior
n = 2,019 n = 6,455 n = 5,979 n = 9,887 n = 16,961 n = 18,689
Achievement orientation -0.07 -0.03 -0.01 0.01 0.10 0.19
Adaptability -0.29 -0.22 -0.12 -0.16 -0.02 0.07
Coach and mentor -0.16 -0.21 -0.15 -0.09 0.05 0.17
Conflict management -0.28 -0.23 -0.10 0.01 0.18 0.30
Emotional self-awareness -0.14 -0.15 -0.12 -0.08 0.03 0.15
Emotional self-control -0.51 -0.53 -0.44 -0.41 -0.32 -0.21
Empathy -0.08 -0.09 -0.06 -0.02 0.08 0.19
Influence -0.18 -0.21 -0.21 -0.15 -0.06 -0.01
Inspirational leadership -0.22 -0.20 -0.11 -0.09 0.06 0.19
Organizational awareness -0.08 -0.15 -0.13 -0.12 -0.03 0.05
Positive outlook -0.16 -0.13 -0.04 -0.03 0.09 0.18
Teamwork -0.13 -0.08 0.01 0.08 0.17 0.27

Table 22. Effect sizes for self compared to total others absolute values by job level
Effect sizes (dz) for self compared to total others absolute values by
job level
Senior
n = 2,019 n = 6,455 n = 5,979 n = 9,887 n = 16,961 n = 18,689
Achievement orientation 1.18 1.21 1.21 1.27 1.27 1.27
Adaptability 1.32 1.29 1.31 1.32 1.29 1.30
Coach and mentor 1.29 1.29 1.30 1.28 1.28 1.28
Conflict management 1.27 1.28 1.25 1.29 1.28 1.28
Emotional self-awareness 1.30 1.29 1.30 1.29 1.30 1.29
Emotional self-control 1.32 1.30 1.30 1.29 1.28 1.28
Empathy 1.25 1.28 1.28 1.30 1.28 1.27
Influence 1.29 1.31 1.29 1.30 1.29 1.28
Inspirational leadership 1.24 1.28 1.25 1.29 1.28 1.27
Organizational awareness 1.24 1.29 1.28 1.30 1.30 1.27
Positive outlook 1.25 1.28 1.27 1.31 1.30 1.30
Teamwork 1.26 1.25 1.25 1.27 1.27 1.25

Does industry affect raters scores?

Average total others scores for participants in different industries compared with the global norm.
Industries are not reported if they contain fewer than 300 participants. Samples were weighted
where needed to ensure that no organization exceeded 15% of each industry benchmark.
Industries where the average effect size across all competencies was equal to or greater than d = .20
were reviewed by gender and country of residence to determine if they deviated substantially from
the global norm. These observations are noted in Table 23.
Table 23. Effect sizes by industry
Industry Industry effect sizes compared to the global norm
Manufacturing Lower by a small amount on all competencies except Coach and mentor and
Positive outlook.
Note: Since women tend to score higher than men, lower scores in
Manufacturing may be due in part to the underrepresentation of women in
this industry sample (24% vs. 37% in the global norm).
Food Products Lower by a small amount on Empathy, Emotional self-awareness, Emotional

self-control, Influence, Organizational awareness, and Teamwork.
Note: Since US participants tend to score higher than the global norm,
lower scores in the Food Products industry may be due in part to the
underrepresentation of US participants in this industry sample (27% vs. 38%
in the global norm).
Consumer Products Lower by a small amount on Achievement orientation, Adaptability,

Empathy, Emotional self-control, Influence, Organizational awareness, and
Teamwork.
Note: Since US participants tend to score higher than the global norm
while participants in China score lower, lower scores in the Consumer
Products industry may be due in part to the underrepresentation of US
participants in this industry sample (23% vs. 38% in the global norm), and
the overrepresentation of participants from China (33% vs. 10% in the global
norm).
Chemical Lower by a medium amount on all competencies.
industry sample. Women, who tend to score higher, are underrepresented
(17% vs. 41% in the global norm), as are participants from the US (13% vs.
38% in the global norm) who also tend to score higher. Participants from
Japan, who tend to score substantially lower, are greatly overrepresented in
this sample (15% vs. 1% in the global norm), as are participants from Spain
(11% vs. 2% in the global norm).
Table 23
continues
Table 23. continued
Pharmaceuticals Lower by a small amount on most competencies.
Note: Lower scores in this industry sample may be due in part to the
underrepresentation of US participants (20% vs. 38% in the global norm),
who tend to score higher, and the overrepresentation of participants from
China (18% vs. 10% in the global norm) and Japan (7% vs. 1% in the global
norm), who tend to score lower.
Technology Lower by a small amount on Achievement orientation and Organizational

awareness.
Telecoms Lower by a small amount on all competencies.
industry sample. Women, who tend to score higher, are underrepresented
(24% vs. 41% in the global norm), as are participants from the US (6% vs.
38% in the global norm). Participants from Portugal, who tend to score
lower, are greatly overrepresented in this sample (15% vs. 0.8% in the global
norm), as are participants from China (18% vs. 10% in the global norm).
Financial Services Consistent with the global norm on all competencies.
Banking Consistent with the global norm on all competencies.
Insurance Consistent with the global norm on all competencies.
Health Higher by a small amount on all competencies.
Note: Higher scores may be due in part to the demographic profile of this
industry sample, which is overrepresented by two groups who tend to score
higher: women (59% vs. 41% in the global norm) and participants from the
US (62% vs. 38% in the global norm).
Utilities Lower by a small amount on all competencies.
Note: Lower scores may be due in part to the demographic profile of this
industry sample, which is underrepresented by two groups who tend to
score higher: women (24% vs. 41% in the global norm) and participants from
the US (21% vs. 38% in the global norm).
Construction Lower by a small amount on Emotional self-awareness, Emotional self-

control, and Positive outlook.
Petroleum Consistent with the global norm on all competencies.
Retail Lower by a small amount on all competencies except Inspirational

leadership and Positive outlook.
Note: Lower scores may be due in part to the underrepresentation of

US participants in this sample (21% vs. 38% in the global norm) and the
overrepresentation of participants from Mexico (8% vs. 2% in the global
norm) and China (16% vs. 10% in the global norm).
Hospitality/Tourism Lower by a small amount on Achievement orientation and Teamwork.
Table 23
continues
Table 23. continued
Transportation Lower by a small amount on all competencies except Inspirational

leadership.
Note: Lower scores may be due in part to the demographic profile of this
sample, which is underrepresented by two groups who tend to score higher:
women (26% vs. 41% in the global norm) and participants from the US (13%
vs. 38% in the global norm), and is overrepresented by countries such as
China that tend to score lower (24% vs. 10% in the global norm).
Broadcast Media Lower by a small amount on Achievement orientation, Coach and mentor,
Empathy, Emotional self-awareness, Inspirational leadership, Influence, and
Positive outlook.
Professional Services Consistent with the global norm on all competencies.
Legal Higher by a small amount on Achievement orientation, Adaptability, Conflict

management, Emotional self-control, Influence, Organizational awareness,
and Teamwork.
Non-profits/Assocs. Consistent with the global norm on all competencies.
US Public Services Higher by a small amount on all competencies.
UK Public Services Higher by a small amount on all competencies.
Note: Since women tend to score higher than men, higher scores in the UK
Public Services may be due in part to the overrepresentation of women in
this industry (58% vs. 41% in the global norm).
Australian Public Consistent with the global norm on all competencies.

Services

Effect sizes by industry

While it may initially appear that a disproportionate number of industries have scores lower than the
global average (as indicated by the negative value associated with their effect size), this is actually
a function of the differences in sample size among industry groups. Many of the industry groups
that are scoring below the global average are smaller in size, while some of the largest groups (e.g.,
Government and Health) score above the global mean. In addition, participants who could not be
clearly classified into one of the industry groups, and are therefore not represented in Table 24, also
scored, on average, above the global mean.
To ensure no single organization exceeded 15% of the industry benchmark, the samples for Food
Products, Chemical, Telecommunications, Financial Services, Banking, Insurance, Health, Construction,
Petroleum, Hospitality & Tourism, Broadcast Media, Professional Services, Legal, Non-profits, and
Australian Public Services were weighted.
Table 24. Effect sizes by industry compared to the global norm
Industry effect sizes compared to the global norm

Competency Mfg Food Consumer Chemical Pharma
n = 4,174 n = 1,913 n = 1,068 n = 702 n = 2,272
Achievement orientation -0.24 -0.16 -0.29 -0.64 -0.18
Adaptability -0.22 -0.19 -0.25 -0.65 -0.21
Coach and mentor -0.16 -0.18 -0.10 -0.57 -0.20
Conflict management -0.27 -0.16 -0.16 -0.54 -0.16
Emotional self-awareness -0.30 -0.26 -0.10 -0.73 -0.16
Emotional self-control -0.22 -0.25 -0.21 -0.41 -0.26
Empathy -0.29 -0.27 -0.22 -0.60 -0.17
Influence -0.27 -0.20 -0.33 -0.63 -0.22
Organizational awareness -0.27 -0.23 -0.37 -0.70 -0.30
Teamwork -0.26 -0.20 -0.24 -0.63 -0.21
Mean effect size -0.24 -0.20 -0.21 -0.60 -0.20
Median effect size -0.25 -0.19 -0.21 -0.61 -0.20
Table 24
continues
Table 24. continued

Competency Tech Telecoms Financial Banking Insur
n = 3,633 n = 654 n = 4,542 n = 1,637 n = 1,721
Achievement orientation -0.22 -0.45 -0.12 -0.02 0.02
Adaptability -0.10 -0.29 -0.05 -0.01 0.08
Coach and mentor -0.07 -0.28 -0.04 0.07 0.04
Conflict management -0.17 -0.35 -0.07 0.00 0.09
Emotional self-awareness -0.16 -0.28 -0.03 0.04 -0.02
Emotional self-control -0.06 -0.37 0.00 -0.09 0.10
Empathy -0.13 -0.27 -0.02 -0.04 0.01
Influence -0.16 -0.22 -0.04 0.00 0.03
Organizational awareness -0.20 -0.27 -0.07 0.02 0.06
Positive outlook -0.15 -0.25 -0.16 -0.12 0.02
Teamwork -0.13 -0.33 -0.03 -0.02 0.03
Mean effect size -0.14 -0.30 -0.06 -0.02 0.04
Median effect size -0.15 -0.28 -0.04 -0.01 0.03

Competency Health Utilities Constr Petroleum Retail
n = 3,284 n = 318 n = 836 n = 589 n = 1,302
Achievement orientation 0.30 -0.33 -0.03 0.01 -0.24
Adaptability 0.24 -0.25 -0.02 -0.02 -0.24
Coach and mentor 0.22 -0.24 0.00 0.01 -0.22
Conflict management 0.33 -0.35 -0.17 0.02 -0.20
Emotional self-awareness 0.31 -0.46 -0.26 -0.18 -0.24
Emotional self-control 0.30 -0.21 -0.23 -0.08 -0.24
Empathy 0.29 -0.27 -0.16 -0.08 -0.32
Influence 0.30 -0.25 -0.10 0.00 -0.27
Inspirational leadership 0.32 -0.30 -0.04 0.01 -0.13
Organizational awareness 0.28 -0.26 0.03 -0.01 -0.29
Positive outlook 0.26 -0.39 -0.23 0.03 -0.13
Teamwork 0.27 -0.24 -0.11 0.00 -0.34
Mean effect size 0.28 -0.30 -0.11 -0.02 -0.24
Median effect size 0.29 -0.26 -0.10 0.00 -0.24
Table 24
continues
Table 24. continued
Competency Hospitality/ Broadcast Profess.

Tourism Transport Media Services Legal
n = 357 n = 770 n = 353 n = 1,111 n = 206
Achievement orientation -0.24 -0.40 -0.21 0.09 0.17
Adaptability -0.11 -0.28 -0.14 0.03 0.31
Coach and mentor -0.09 -0.23 -0.28 -0.04 0.14
Conflict management -0.07 -0.32 -0.17 0.11 0.22
Emotional self-awareness -0.18 -0.31 -0.24 0.03 0.03
Emotional self-control -0.17 -0.33 -0.10 0.02 0.28
Empathy -0.17 -0.31 -0.20 0.03 0.15
Influence -0.06 -0.29 -0.27 0.05 0.21
Inspirational leadership 0.01 -0.17 -0.25 0.00 0.15
Organizational awareness -0.11 -0.39 -0.12 0.05 0.21
Positive outlook -0.08 -0.25 -0.26 0.06 0.07
Teamwork -0.21 -0.36 -0.19 0.08 0.19
Mean effect size -0.12 -0.30 -0.20 0.04 0.18
Median effect size -0.11 -0.31 -0.20 0.04 0.18
Competency US Public UK Public Australian Public

Non-profits Services Services Services
n = 401 n = 1,967 n = 1,613 n = 215
Achievement orientation 0.10 0.41 0.23 -0.04
Adaptability 0.00 0.47 0.25 0.07
Coach and mentor -0.01 0.33 0.25 0.00
Conflict management 0.15 0.42 0.33 0.11
Emotional self-awareness 0.02 0.40 0.07 -0.14
Emotional self-control 0.01 0.43 0.32 0.06
Empathy 0.06 0.36 0.23 0.00
Influence 0.09 0.50 0.31 0.11
Inspirational leadership 0.18 0.35 0.24 0.01
Organizational awareness 0.15 0.47 0.33 0.19
Positive outlook 0.12 0.29 0.07 -0.11
Teamwork 0.10 0.38 0.25 0.04
Mean effect size 0.08 0.40 0.24 0.02
Median effect size 0.09 0.41 0.25 0.02

6. References
Amdurer, E., Boyatzis, R. E., Saatcioglu, A., Smith, M. L., & Taylor, S. N. (2014). Long-term impact
of emotional, social and cognitive intelligence competencies and GMAT on career and life
satisfaction and career success. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1447.
Araujo, S. V. A., & Taylor, S. N. (2012). The influence of emotional and social competencies on the
performance of Peruvian refinery staff. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal (now
published as Cross Cultural and Strategic Management), 19(1), 19-29.
Ashkanasy, N. M., & Daus, C. S. (2005). Rumors of the death of emotional intelligence in
organizational behavior are vastly exaggerated. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 441-452.
Babu, M. (2016). Characteristics of effective leadership of community college presidents (Unpublished

doctoral dissertation). Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
Bajaj, B. (2013). An examination of the relationship between emotional intelligence, leadership styles
and leadership effectiveness (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Jaypee Institute of Information
Technology, Noida, India.
Bajaj, B., & Medury, Y. (2013). Relationship between emotional and social competences and
transformational leadership style. International Journal of Research in Commerce, IT &
Management, 3(2), 56-59.
Ballou, R., Bowers, D., Boyatzis, R., & Kolb, D. (1999). Fellowship in lifelong learning: An executive
development program for advanced professionals. Journal of Management Education,
23(4), 338-354.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Redwood City, CA:
Mind Garden.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective performance. New York, NY:
John Wiley & Sons.
Boyatzis, R. E. (2002). Unleashing the power of self-directed learning. In R. R. Sims (Ed.), Changing
the way we manage change (pp. 13-32). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Boyatzis, R. E. (2006). The transformation of the ECI (Research Report). Boston, MA: Hay Group.
Boyatzis, R. E. (2007). The creation of the emotional and social competency inventory (ESCI)
(Research Report). Boston, MA: Hay Group.
Boyatzis, R. E. (2008). Leadership development from a complexity perspective. Consulting

Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60(4), 298-313.
Boyatzis, R. E. (2016). Commentary on Ackley (2016): Updates on the ESCI as the behavioral level of
emotional intelligence. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 68(4), 287-293.
Boyatzis, R. E., Batista-Foguet, J. M., Fernandez-i-Marin, X., & Truninger, M. (2015). EI competencies as
a related but different characteristic than intelligence. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 72.
Boyatzis, R. E., Brizz, T. J., & Godwin, L. (2011). The effect of religious leaders emotional and social
competencies on improving parish vibrancy. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,
18(2), 192-206.

Boyatzis, R. E., & Cavanagh, K. V. (in press). Leading change: Developing emotional, social, and
cognitive intelligence competencies in managers during an MBA program. In K. V. Keefer,
J. D. A. Parker, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), Handbook of emotional intelligence in education: The
Springer series on human exceptionality. Springer Press.
Boyatzis, R. E., Cowen, S. S., & Kolb, D. A. (1995). Innovation in professional education: Steps on a
journey from teaching to learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Boyatzis, R. E., & Gaskin, J. (2010). A technical note on the ESCI/ESCI-U: Factor structure, reliability,
convergent and discriminant validity using EFA and CFA (Research Report).
Boston, MA: Hay Group.
Boyatzis, R. E., Gaskin, J., & Wei, H. (2015). Emotional and social intelligence and behavior. In
S. Goldstein, D. Princiotta, & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Handbook of intelligence: Evolutionary theory,
historical perspective and current concepts (pp. 243-262). New York, NY: Springer Press.
Boyatzis, R. E., & Goleman, D. (1996/1999). Emotional competency inventory.

Boston, MA: The Hay Group.
Boyatzis, R. E., Good, D., & Massa, R. (2012). Emotional, social and cognitive intelligence and
personality as predictors of sales leadership performance. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 19(2), 191-201.
Boyatzis, R. E., Rochford, K., & Cavanagh, K. (2017). Emotional intelligence competencies in engineers
effectiveness and engagement. Career Development International, 22(1), 70-86.
Boyatzis, R. E., & Sala, F. (2004). The Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI). In G. Geher (Ed.),
Measuring emotional intelligence (pp. 147-180). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Boyatzis, R. E., Smith, M. L., & Blaize, N. (2006). Developing sustainable leaders through coaching and
compassion. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5(1), 8-24.
Boyatzis, R. E., Stubbs, E. C., & Taylor, S. N. (2002). Learning cognitive and emotional intelligence
competencies through graduate management education. Academy of Management Learning and
Education, 1(2), 150-162.
Brown, R. D., & Hauenstein, N. M. A. (2005). Interrater agreement reconsidered: An alternative to the
rWG indices. Organizational Research Methods, 8(2), 165-184.
Cherniss, C., & Adler, M. (2000). Promoting emotional intelligence in organizations.

Alexandria, VA: ASTD.
Cohen, A., Doveh, E., & Nahum-Shani, I. (2009) Testing agreement for multi-item scales with the
indices rWG(J) and ADM(J). Organizational Research Methods, 12(1), 148-164.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO
Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources, Inc.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books.

Hamme, C. (2003). Group emotional intelligence: The research and development of an assessment
instrument (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Rutgers State University of New Jersey,
Piscataway, NJ.
Havers, G. (2010). EI at the heart of performance: The implications of our 2010 ESCI research
(Research Report). Boston, MA: Hay Group.
Hay/McBer. (1985). Generic competency dictionary. Boston, MA: Hay/McBer.
Hay Group. (2015a). Leadership styles technical notes.
Hay Group. (2015b). Organizational climate technical notes.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within groups interrater reliability with and
without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85-98.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). rWG: An assessment of within-group interrater
agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306-309.
Kendall, L. (2016). A theory of micro-level dynamic capabilities: How technology leaders innovate
with human connection (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Case Western Reserve University,
Cleveland, Ohio.
Kerr, P. S. (in press). The power of EI: Comparisons across data from Korn Ferry Hay Group leadership
and employee surveys (Research Report). Minneapolis, MN: Korn Ferry Institute.
Koman, E. S., & Wolff, S. B. (2008). Emotional intelligence competencies in the team and team leader:
A multi-level examination of the impact of emotional intelligence on team performance. Journal of
Management Development, 27(1), 55-75.
Korn Ferry Hay Group. (2016). Women outperform men in 11 of 12 key emotional intelligence
competencies (Research Findings). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
Mahon, E. G., Taylor, S.N., & Boyatzis, R. E. (2014). Antecedents of organizational engagement:
Exploring vision, mood and perceived organizational support with emotional intelligence as a
moderator. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1322.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.),
Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3-25). New York,
NY: Basic Books.
McClelland, D. C. (1973). Testing for competence rather than for intelligence. American Psychologist,
28(1), 1-14.
McClelland, D. C., & Burnham, D. H. (1976). Power is the great motivator. Harvard Business Review,
54, 100-110.
Miao, C., Humphrey, R., & Qian, S. (2014). Employee emotional intelligence, leader emotional
intelligence and employee/subordinate job satisfaction: A meta-analysis (Unpublished
manuscript). Virginia Commonwealth University.
Miller, S. P. (2015). Developing next-generation leadership talent in family businesses: The family effect
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve
University, Cleveland, Ohio.

Mosteo, L., Batista-Foguet, J. M., McKeever, J. D., & Serlavos, R. (2016). Understanding Cognitive-
Emotional processing through a coaching process: The influence of coaching on vision,
goal-directed energy, and resilience. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 52(1), 1-33.
doi:10.1177/0021886315600070
Nowacki, A. S., Barss, C., Spencer, S. M., Christensen, T., Fralicx, R., & Stoller, J. K. (2015). Emotional
intelligence and physician leadership potential: A longitudinal study supporting a link. Journal of
Health Administration Education, 33(1), 23-41.
Osburn, H. G. (2000). Coefficient alpha and related internal consistency reliability coefficients.
Psychological Methods, 5(3), 343-355.
Pardasani, R. (2016). Resonant leadership and its individual and organizational outcomes: A test
of mediation by emotional attractors and resilience (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The
Management Development Institute, Gurgaon, India.
Pittenger, L. M. (2015). Emotional and social competencies and perceptions of the interpersonal
environment of an organization as related to the engagement of IT professionals. Frontiers in
Psychology, 6, 623.
Ramo, L. G., Saris, W. E., & Boyatzis, R. E. (2009). The impact of social and emotional competencies
on effectiveness of Spanish executives. Journal of Management Development, 28(9), 771-793.
Raven, J. C. (1962). Advanced Progressive Matrices, Set I. London, England: H. K. Lewis. (Distributed in
the United States by The Psychological Corporation, San Antonio, TX).
Raven, J. C. (1982). The 1979 standardisation of the Standard Progressive Matrices and Mill Hill
Vocabulary Scale. Research supplement no. 1 to the Manual for Ravens Progressive Matrices and
Vocabulary Scales. London, England: H. K. Lewis.
Ryan, G., Emmerling, R. J., & Spencer, L. M. (2009). Distinguishing high-performing European
executives. Journal of Management Development, 28(9), 859-875.
Ryan, G., Spencer, L. M., & Bernhard, U. (2012). Development and validation of a customized
competency questionnaire: Linking social, emotional and cognitive competencies to business unit
profitability. Cross Cultural Management, 19(1), 90-103.
Spencer, L. M., Jr., & Spencer, S. M. (1993). Competence at work: Models for superior performance.
New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Van Oosten, E. B. (2013). The impact of emotional intelligence and executive coaching on leader
effectiveness (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Case Western Reserve University,
Cleveland, Ohio.
Williams, H. (2008). Characteristics that distinguish outstanding urban principals: Emotional

intelligence, social intelligence and environmental adaptation. Journal of Management
Development, 27(1), 36-54.

7. Appendix A.
ESCI: Behavioral level of Emotional and Social Intelligence
There are multiple streams of research on emotional and social intelligence. Each stream is grounded
in different conceptualizations of emotional intelligence and has relied on different measures
(Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005). Stream 1 is based on the model defined by Mayer and Salovey (1997),
which defines EI as a facet of intelligence or cognitive ability. Measures aligned with this stream
include direct measures of individuals cognitive capacity to process and use emotional information.
Stream 2 is also based on the Mayer-Salovey model, but includes studies using self-assessments
and peer-reports of the intellectual capacity to handle emotional information. Traditionally, all other
theoretical approaches to conceptualizing emotional intelligence have been grouped together as
mixed models (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005). More recently, this categorization has been differentiated
into trait-based approaches (Stream 3) and behavior-based approaches (Stream 4). ESCI exemplifies
Stream 4 assessments of EI, the measurement of behaviors that manifest EI as observed by others
(Boyatzis, 2016; Boyatzis et al., 2015).
Boyatzis and colleagues (Boyatzis, 2016; Boyatzis et al., 2015) have proposed a framework that shows
how these different approaches to defining and measuring emotional intelligence relate to each
other. This framework, illustrated in Figure 7, shows how individuals emotional and social intelligence
is revealed, developed, and related to their performance.

Figure 7. A multi-level model of Emotional and Social Intelligence (adapted from Boyatzis, 2016;
Boyatzis et al., 2015)
Performance
Observed cluster of EI and/or SI competencies
Behavioral level
(e.g., ESCI)
Behavioral Behavioral Behavioral Behavioral
Expression of EI Expression of EI Expression of SI Expression of SI
Competency 1 Competency 2 Competency 1 Competency 2
Self-perception and self-conceptualization of EI and SI
Self-perceived level
(e.g., EQ-i)
Value and philosophical foundations of EI and SI
Motivation, trait, and unconscious dispositions or abilities Ability level

related to EI or SI (e.g., MSCEIT)
Neural circuits and hormonal patterns related to EI or SI
As the most researched and robust Stream 4 measure, the ESCI is particularly well suited for
development initiatives where the gathering of 360-degree data is possible. By providing behavioral
feedback, it can offer rich insights from others that are highly relevant to an individuals work
performance. As behaviors and competencies are more malleable than traits, ESCI feedback is
actionable and can help individuals develop.

About Korn Ferry
Korn Ferry is the preeminent global people and organizational advisory
firm. We help leaders, organizations, and societies succeed by releasing
the full power and potential of people. Our nearly 7,000 colleagues
deliver services through our Executive Search, Hay Group and
Futurestep divisions. Visit kornferry.com for more information.
Visit kornferryinstitute.com for more information on thought

leadership, intellectual property and research.
ESCI Research guide and technical manual

Emotional and Social Competency Inventory: Research Guide and Technical Manual

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Emotional and Social Competency Inventory: Research Guide and Technical Manual

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Emotional and social

This document contains proprietary business information of

For the sake of linguistic simplicity in this product, where the

Korn Ferry 2017. All rights reserved.

ESCI Research guide and technical manual

Boyatzis partnership with Korn Ferry Hay Group resulted in a validated

In Working with Emotional Intelligence, Goleman presented studies of the

Samantha Guise, Technical Author, Korn Ferry Hay Group

Sarah Hezlett, Senior Assessment Scientist, Korn Ferry Institute

Paula Kerr, Senior Manager, Korn Ferry Institute

Stephen Lams, Talent Product Manager, Korn Ferry Hay Group

Korn Ferry 2017. All rights reserved. i

Why EI continues to make a difference

What this manual covers

ii Korn Ferry 2017. All rights reserved.

What the 2016 ESCI data reveal

EI supports employee and leadership performance

Emotional self-awareness remains the cornerstone of EI

Demonstrate an average of 10 ESCI competencies consistently (ESCI strengths).

EI as a key predictor of leadership effectiveness

EI as a key predictor of employee effectiveness, engagement, and innovation

Korn Ferry 2017. All rights reserved. iii

1. Assessing emotional and social intelligence competencies................................................................... 1

2. Delivering ESCI feedback.................................................................................................................................... 7

3. The scientific foundation for the ESCI..........................................................................................................13

4. Developing EI and SI............................................................................................................................................51

5. Differences in EI and SI scores by key demographic variables.........................................................53

7. Appendix A. ESCI: Behavioral level of Emotional and Social Intelligence.....................................81

Korn Ferry 2017. All rights reserved. v

1. Assessing emotional and social intelligence competencies

The focus of behavioral EI is competencies. Identified from studies of

1.1 What is emotional and social intelligence?

1.2 Measuring emotional and social intelligence

Korn Ferry 2017. All rights reserved. 1

1.3 The ESCI model

Figure 1. The ESCI model

2 Korn Ferry 2017. All rights reserved.

1.4 The competencies measured by the ESCI

Korn Ferry 2017. All rights reserved. 3

1.5 The ESCI-U

1.6 How ESCI data are gathered

Use of self-assessment scores

Using valid data

Finally, securing an accurate assessment of a participants emotional intelligence requires multiple

4 Korn Ferry 2017. All rights reserved.

1.7 How the ESCI is scored

What does a competency score represent?

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Consistently

Korn Ferry 2017. All rights reserved. 5

2. Delivering ESCI feedback

The ESCI shows participants how others experience their behavior in

2.1 Using the ESCI and ESCI-U

Korn Ferry 2017. All rights reserved. 7

Choosing the right instrument for the situation

Table 1. ESCI and ESCI-U

Participants Leaders, managers, professionals, Pre- or post-graduate students

Competencies The 12 emotional and social The 12 emotional and social

Benchmarking Extensive global norm group Not benchmarked.

Certification Certification is required to provide Certification is not required to use

8 Korn Ferry 2017. All rights reserved.

2.2 Sharing ESCI feedback

Any areas of surprise or concern at the summary level.

Any patterns surfacing in the responses of the different rater groups.