A Gendered Analysis of Emotional Intelligence in the Workplace: Issues and Concerns For Human Resource Development

Abstract

Drawing on a sociological analysis considering gender, this paper explores how emotional

intelligence (EI) abilities are socially constructed and valued. It presents a range of societal

trends including ‘the future is female’ to explore how both men and women are perceived and

judged against symbolic representations of masculine and feminine when they perform

gendered conceptions of EI. The paper illuminates how women and men may be encouraged

to take up feminine and masculine interpretations of EI skills but women fare less well . It

then examines the effects of EI’s assessment and therapeutic methods in training and work-

based use. It argues that these approaches are damaging to individuals when deployed in work

environments where masculinised management resides as the dominant framework. Finally,

the paper discusses the findings in relation to HRD to reveal important theoretical guidelines

for practice.

Introduction

Emotional intelligence (EI) claims to offer much to businesses of the twenty first century with

benefits including improved performance and productivity (Joseph and Newman, 2010;

O’Boyle et al, 2011). For instance, EI predicts group performance, organisational citizenship

behaviour (Day and Carroll, 2004) and leader emergence (Rubin, Munz and Bommer, 2005).

Its popularity has influenced workplace opinions on effective management styles (Ross-Smith,

Kornberger, Anandakumar and Cheterman, 2007) and according to the flourishing

1

management consultancy industry, EI competencies are taking centre stage in staff selection

(Hatcher, 2008). Calls for EI training can be found in sectors and occupational groups such as

medicine, nursing, pharmacy, the legal profession, leaders, managers, executives and students,

to name but a few (Clarke, 2006, Bharwaney, 2006; Matthew, Zeidner and Roberts, 2007;

Reilly, 2005). In this respect, emotion is no longer viewed as an irrational force but something

which can be controlled and made functional with the correct training (Hatcher, 2003).

In this paper, EI is described as the ability to perceive, use, understand and manage emotions

in one’s self and others (Mayer and Salovey, 1997; Geher and Remstom, 2004, Schutte et al,

1998). As a set of learnable abilities, EI is attractive to Human Resource Development (HRD)

specialists because it provides a framework of skills, previously hidden or immeasurable in

organisational life, but responsible for behaviours considered to help people be successful and

effective at work. Measuring EI in test-like and self-report conditions provides a score which

can form the basis of competency training, team building, learning and development

programmes as well as inform career development planning (McEnrue and Groves, 2006). For

example, EI measures have been used by HRD specialists for executive coaching and

management development (Boyatzis, Stubbs and Taylor, 2002; Peterson, 1996; Slaski and

Cartwright, 2003). In a review of EI studies McEnrue and Groves (2006: 31-32) state that EI

models and measures have demonstrable application to organisational development, change

management and learning.

Differences in emotional intelligence between men and women have been discussed in

psychological accounts. In psychological studies, women score higher than men on EI (Day

and Carroll, 2004; Joseph and Newman, 2010; Palmer, Gignac, Manocha and Stough, 2005;

van Rooy, Dilchert, Viswesvaran and Ones, 2006). Consistent with this, other studies of

2

emotion and gender using self-report and independent behavioural scorers indicate differences

which ascribe to the notion that women have higher EI than men. Women are better at

decoding non-verbal cues in the face, body and voice, are more attentive and aware of

emotions and have more multifaceted emotional knowledge than men (Ciarrochi, Hynes and

Crittenden, 2005; Feldman Barrett, Lane, Sechrest and Schwartz, 2000; McClure, 2000; Gohm

and Clore, 2000). In measurement terms, self report inventories do have limitations because

people tend to revert to gender stereotyping when filling them in (c.f. Feldman Barrett, Robin,

Peitromonaco and Eyssell, 1998) thus actual behaviour may not be in alignment with self

reported behaviour. However, based on psychological accounts which view gender as a

stable, unitary category, it seems that, overall, women should be encouraged to embrace the

concept of EI as it celebrates all that is symbolically feminine – being aware of emotions,

reading emotions, understanding complex emotional information, talking about feelings and

nurturing constructive social relationships. Women seem to win in the EI stakes because the

concept challenges more masculinised workplaces, dominated by men who have historically

determined what is appropriate emotional (in)expression. This growing valuation of feminine

skills in the workplace is epitomised by representations in the media of ‘the future is female’

(Broadbridge and Simpson, 2011) where ‘feminine’ abilities are said to contribute to effective

team-working, customer service and new authentic and transformational forms of leadership.

Yet, because studies of EI have been dominated by a psychological framing they have missed

a more nuanced sociological analysis that would include recognition of structural factors. To

date, critiques of EI from a sociological perspective have addressed a number of themes but

gender has been under-explored. For instance, accounts have explored the commodification

and instrumentalisation of EI at work, its scope to be used in more manipulative ways, its

elitist position which undermines people’s subjective experiences and valuations of emotions,

3

its cultural insensitivity and incursion into identity formation as a form of self surveillance

(c.f. Bolton, 2005; Clegg and Baumeler, 2010; Fambrough and Hart, 2008; Fineman, 2000;

2004; Hughes, 2005; Illouz, 2009; Lindebaum, 2009; Lindebaum and Cassell, 2012). A

sociological approach, drawing on a gendered analysis of EI, which explores how these skills

are socially constructed and valued, highlights power dynamics and inequalities which are

under-investigated. Though the debate on other forms of ‘emotion work’ from a sociological

approach has dealt with issues of gender such an analysis is conspicuously absent from EI

literature. This paper seeks to address this gap.

In this article, gender refers to ‘the socio-cultural constructions of sex differences and the

beliefs about what is appropriate for, or typical of, one sex more than the other including

feelings, behaviour and interests’ (Broadbridge and Simpson, 2011:470). This article’s

starting point is that, somewhat contradictorily, EI is simultaneously constructed on both male

and female gendered norms: empathy but also efficiency; self control in a market driven

workplace but also emotional perceptiveness and sensitivity; thinking with one’s heart but also

with measured rationality. In this regard, EI appears replete with emotions which are both

gender coded as masculine (emotional control, rational, quantified use of emotions for

performance) and feminine (identifying and understanding emotion in self and others, talking

about emotion, empathy and care). This argument is based on one general EI where different

emphases are possible (masculine/feminine), rather than arguing for two different gendered

types of EI. Men and women may or may not employ and enact these gender-linked norms

but symbolically they are constantly judged against them. Although these differences are

portrayed as ‘complementary’ or ‘different but equal’, Shields and Warner (2007: 174) note:

4

“If we look at the way that “his” and “hers” types of EI are valued, we begin to see the

inequities that exist. Specifically, one reason why the playing field is not level is that

the types of EI that women are supposedly good at are not valued as much as the types

of EI that men are supposedly good at”.

Drawing on a structural analysis, this paper explores: 1. the impact on men and women when

they perform EI as feminine and masculine skills and 2. the effects of EI’s assessment and

therapeutic methods in training and work-based use where masculine management resides as

the dominant normative framework. The structure of the paper is as follows. The first section

presents a description of emotional intelligence. It then explains a sociological approach to

gender, described as ‘doing’ gender. Following this, the paper draws on a range of social

trends to explore how both men and women are perceived and judged against symbolic

representations of masculine and feminine when they perform gendered conceptions of EI.

The sections illuminates how women and men may be encouraged to take up feminine and

masculine interpretations of EI skills but women fare less well overall. The final section

examines the use of EI assessment tools and EI’s therapeutic training practices, arguing they

are damaging to individuals when deployed in work environments where masculinised

management resides as the dominant framework. Finally, the paper discusses the findings in

relation to HRD to reveal important theoretical guidelines for practice. Overall, by connecting

a gendered analysis of emotional intelligence to HRD, this paper contributes to a growing

body of published work on EI in this journal (e.g. Clarke, 2006; Opengart, 2005; Weinberger,

2002) and explores themes of power, rationality, social structures and feminist theory also

reflected in recent articles in this journal (Bierema, 2009).

5

Emotional Intelligence

As a set of abilities which refer to perceiving, understanding, using and managing emotions,

emotional intelligence is seen as an intelligence that is relatively independent of personality

traits (Mayer and Salovey, 1997) but is somewhat related to measures of traditional

intelligence (Day and Kelloway, 2004). Perceiving emotions introduces the ability to

accurately identify emotions in oneself and others, using cues from facial expressions, voice

or gestures. Using emotions denotes the ability to generate, use and feel emotion as necessary

to communicate feelings or employ them in other cognitive processes. Understanding

emotions entails the ability to understand their causes, and consequences and how they change

over time. EI also involves the management of emotions in oneself and others (Brackett and

Salovey, 2004). Tests which measure EI collect data against expert and consensus opinion in

the form of self report, peer report (for team based measures of EI) or behaviourally assessed

measures (e.g. Jordan, Ashkanasy, Härtel and Hooper 2002; Mayer, Caruso and Salovey,

1999; Schutte et al, 1998). Viewed as a form of intelligence, EI develops with age

(Ashkanasy and Daus, 2005) and can be enhanced through training and development in an

integrated fashion (Caruso and Salovey, 2004).

Despite its popularity, a number of concerns have been raised regarding EI’s conceptual and

theoretical properties, how it is measured and its predictive ability. For example, concerns

have been voiced over whether EI as genetically based, learned or both (Bracket and Salovey,

2004). In addition, psychologists note a lack of clarity as to whether EI measures ‘real’

abilities, declarative knowledge of emotions or cultural values and beliefs (Matthews, Emo

and Roberts, 2006). Where EI tests use independent raters of behaviour, there is a lack of

consideration of contextual information in the scenarios given and assumptions that expert

6

scores produce unquestionable right and wrong answers (rather than cultural biases or

different, better ways of thinking) (Matthews et al, 2002; Murphy, 2006:348). More recently,

empirical studies highlight that emotion perception and expression is influenced by situational

(visual scenes, bodies, others’ faces) and cross-cultural factors (e.g. Elfenbein, Beaupré,

Lévesque and Hess, 2007; Feldman Barrett , Mesquita and Gendron, 2011; Karim and Weisz,

2010). For studies that explore the EI-performance link, commentators note that outcome

variables in EI studies are often difficult to measure and operationalise (van Rooy, Dilchert,

Viswesvaran and Ones, 2006). In addition, a full causal model of the potential competing

explanations on performance which would ask what EI adds when other variables are already

in the equation (IQ, personality, tacit or procedural knowledge, experience, interests,

education, broader socio-political context) is rarely conducted. Whilst this is a brief review of

the issues in the psychological literature, a gendered, sociological critique of EI endorses

general psychological concerns over EI’s lack of social and cultural contextualisation.

However, this article does not seek to address the psychological concerns with

methodological, conceptual or theoretical recommendations. Instead, through a sociological

framework it explores alternative ways of theorising EI (that is, how it is formed) by focusing

on a socio-cultural perspective. Articulating gender as ‘doing’, which underlines the

socialisation of EI behaviours and their social construction, enables us to reveal how structural

inequalities are at play.

Gender as ‘doing’

Gender as ‘doing’ denotes gender as a recurring accomplishment to manage behaviour in

light of normative or idealised practices expected for masculinity or femininity. As West and

Zimmerman (1987) explain in their seminal account:

7

“Doing gender involves a complex of socially guided perceptual, interactional, and

micropolitical activities that cast particular pursuits as expressions of masculine and

feminine ‘natures’ ” (West and Zimmerman, 1987: 126).

Gender linked actions are constituted through interaction where ‘we learn to produce and

recognise masculine and feminine gender displays’ (West and Zimmerman, 1987: 130). As a

consequence gender work appears natural and correct. What is produced is ‘material

embodiment’ of male and female nature in the form of roles and conduct (West and

Zimmerman, 1987: 144). Thus, a gender perspective enables us to explore how we understand

what is historically and culturally ascribed as masculine and feminine appropriate ways of

‘thinking (knowing), feeling, valuing and acting’, and the consequences of that (Alvesson and

Billing, 2009:7). For instance, masculinity is typically described in terms of instrumental

rational control, quantification (money), reductionism, competitiveness and analysis (Hines,

1992; Marshall, 1993). Cultural attributes of femininity are described in terms of nurturance,

sensitivity, empathy and compassion (Grant, 1988). If a woman performs behaviours of

subordination by doing gender and a man of dominance they legitimise and maintain a social

order. In this way, structural arrangements produce or allow some capacities that have been

previously constructed as biological differences (West and Zimmerman, 1987). In other

words, ‘doing’ gender repositions the concept from an ascribed status (noun) to an achieved

status (verb) (Davies, 1996; West and Zimmerman, 2009).

Framing emotion as a socio-cultural resource in the production and reproduction of gender

serves as a useful lens through which to examine EI. Emotions are used as resources or

gendered norms (specific emotions or emotional engagements) (Lewis and Simpson, 2007).

8

Gendered emotion norms refer to men having greater emotional self control (‘inexpressivity’)

and women being more emotional (‘emotionality’) (Shields, 2002:52-54). Men are believed

to experience more anger and pride and women more happiness and sadness (Brody and Hall,

2008). Men and women may or may not draw on and exhibit these gender-linked images. In

day to day life, being male and female does not necessarily fit either category but symbolically

both sexes are constantly judged against them. Thus, this is not an exhaustive list of responses

and certainly the intention is not to stereotype women and men in particular ways. Nor does it

seek to produce ‘either/or’ scenarios or exclude that both feminine and masculine aspects of

EI can be embraced simultaneously by either sex. It also acknowledges that men and women

may occupy these categories with reservations, misgivings and uncertainties.

As Lewis and Simpson (2007:4) note, whilst not denying gender differences, viewing

gendered norms as cultural resources enables an exploration of meanings associated with

difference and how differences are made sense of, shaped, evaluated, maintained or

contravened. Because doing gender is an accomplishment, it is also optional, and yet, as West

and Zimmerman (1987: 146) note: “If we fail to do gender appropriately, we as individuals –

not the institutional arrangements – may be called into account (for our character, motives,

and predispositions)”. This highlights the ongoing accountability and assessment made on

men and women’s enactments of normative conceptions of manly and womanly behaviour.

Likewise, as Brody and Hall (2008: 396) note: “Violating stereotypic display rules can lead to

negative social consequences, such as social rejection and discrimination”.

As West and Zimmerman (1987) highlight, failing to ‘do’ gender appropriately tends to result

in individual rather than institutional accountability. Usefully, through a socio-cultural

analysis, light can be shed on organisational structures and practices that sustain (and

9

challenge) norms of masculine/feminine. Organisational structures refer to power relations,

positions, and hierarchies which are maintained and reinforced through actions, events and

experiences such as managerial decision making and organisational culture. Whilst

acknowledging that gendered norms vary across occupations, professions and sectors, certain

propensities pervade in organisational structures. Noteworthy is the way men reside in

privileged positions of hierarchical power which subjugate or marginalise lower levels and

minority groups and relatedly, the influence of ‘masculinity’ as a dominant managerial type

(hierarchy and control). If men and women adopt appropriate attitudes and activities for their

sex which sustain work-based patriarchal structures, the social order can be interpreted as a

normal expression of essential differences between men and women. Thus, gender

achievement is institutional because its language and conduct is a social product of

institutional arrangements where these interactions take place (West and Zimmerman, 2009).

As Davies (1996: 664) notes: “culturally constructed gender relations are called forth, overtly

or otherwise, and in a variety of different ways, to enable the daily business of the

organisation to take place”. As practices and cultural values they become deeply rooted in and

around institutions, reflecting societal values and dominant groups more broadly. In this way,

power structures are grounded in patriarchy and can be highly resistant to initiatives that

attempt to threaten them such as addressing inequality issues (Bierema, 2009).

New social trends in gendered norms

Culturally ascribed values to the male and female are constantly being re-negotiated and

transformed in their day to day production (Davies, 1996: 664; Shields, 2002). In their

comprehensive review of twenty-five years of research on gender and management,

Broadbridge and Simpson (2011) highlight how the feminisation thesis has been widely

10

perpetuated in the media and scholarly research. Partly influenced by the demand for

‘feminine’ skills in the workplace, it has been driven by a new form of capitalism where

managers must learn to display more warmth, connection, openness and empathy at work;

feminine skills especially required in the service sector (Hatcher, 2003; Swan, 2008). The

notion of compassionate capitalism, post-banking crisis, and the idea that women can reinvent

society and business practices through openness, fairness and social responsibility has also

been a dominant narrative in the media (c.f. Sunderland, 2009). In leadership and management

styles, this approach is embedded in new fields of transformational, authentic and servant

leadership (van Dierendonck, 2011; Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt and van Engen, 2003). In

management roles, Francis and Keegan (2006) note the line manager is now increasingly

responsible for absence management, grievance handling, discipline issues and counselling

employees as well as appraisal and selection activities, general motivation and coaching.

These are roles which require EI, particularly in relation to empathy, emotional awareness and

managing emotions. Reinforcing this is the assumption that women’s feminine skills are

enhanced in non-work pursuits where it is currently fashionable to ‘work on’ being a more

emotionally literate partner, parent or friend. EI becomes a resource which can be

transferred from intimate relationships to work-based ones (Ilouz, 2009). This new emphasis

on conceptions of femininity helps to explore how women may have a competitive advantage

by embracing those aspects of EI socially ascribed as women’s skills. Equally though, there is

a growing realisation that men are feminising their skills in accordance with societal and

organisational norms and thus can benefit from adopting ‘feminine’ EI attributes, particularly

in white collar, professional occupations. This is referred to as ‘feminised masculinity’

(Furedi, 2004) and is epitomised by the ‘new man’ - an increased acceptance of feminine

masculinity in society and the workplace (e.g. Furedi, 2004; Illouz, 2009; Shields and Warner,

2007; Swan, 2008).

11

In contrast to the feminisation of workplaces thesis, Broadbridge and Simpson (2011) also

point to a body of research which argues that masculinsed or macho management practices

are becoming more prevalent in workplaces. Broadbridge and Simpson (2011:474) chart a

fundamental ascendency of ‘excessive’ and ‘heroic’ masculinity which paves the way for

emphasising the more masculine attributes of EI (instrumental emotional self control). This

dominance is marked by masculine notions of entrepreneurship, strategic management and a

hegemonic masculinity which seeks to subvert femininities. In addition, they refer to critical

management accounts which explore how management processes and practices, previously

coded as feminine, are now being discursively re-formulated as masculine (Broadbridge and

Simpson, 2011:474). This is demonstrable in work activities such as team working,

communication and relationship building where tensions can arise because of increasing

emphasis on performativity, outputs, monitoring and accounting measures (c.f. Marks and

Panzer, 2004). ‘Caring’ professions such as teaching now carry masculine emotion codes

which speak of practices of control, rationality and performance and overrule the feminine

emotion code of caring (c.f. Davies, 1996). Similarly, customer service roles are increasingly

subject to performance standards, targets, discipline and controlled emotional performances.

Drawing on emotional intelligence as feminine skills: ‘feminine’ and ‘feminine

masculinity’

Given one conviction that the ‘future is female’ and gender equality has been achieved

(Broadbridge and Simpson, 2011), women can choose to enact a female interpretation of EI.

This entails the celebration of ‘women’s’ skills found in EI models as understood as those

natural, feminine qualities which are socially ascribed to women. However, this approach

12

appears problematic when a structural analysis is conducted. When women draw on feminised

cultural emotional norms (as found in feminine codes of EI) these tend not to be associated

with positions of authority and power. That is not to say that there is some evidence that the

currently popular ‘transformational’ leadership style, frequently described as an approach

which celebrates women’s skills (emphasising emotional self-awareness, sensitivity towards

others’ feelings and empathy) enables women to more successfully make visible their female

attributes when compared to men (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt and van Engen, 2003). In this

regard, women in managerial and leadership positions may be rewarded for adopting feminine

EI behaviours. For instance, research indicates that when female managers act more co-

operatively or are more interpersonally oriented, they are appraised more positively in terms

of likability and being influential (e.g. Shackelford, Wood and Worchel, 1996). Unlike men,

when female managers fail to attend to others’ emotions they receive lower satisfaction

ratings from subordinates (Byron, 2008).

Ross-Smith et al’s (2007) study of women executives found that women typically tend to

adopt transformational leadership styles and these leaders were admired and appreciated by

male colleagues. Whilst transformational leadership was appreciated and valued in Ross-

Smith et al’s (2007) study, other accounts note that enhancing feminine qualities typically

does not give women the kind of credit or remuneration men’s key strengths offer. This is

particularly the case in masculine work environments or in non-management positions.

Studies report that these skills are often seen as natural, feminine qualities which are often

unacknowledged, seen as a ‘gift’, ignored and unrewarded (Bolton, 2005; Fletcher, 1999;

Taylor and Tyler, 2000). For example, describing female engineers’ EI acts in a male

dominated engineering firm, Fletcher (1999) accounts for many gestures regularly ‘getting

disappeared’, misunderstood or exploited. The women in her study describe how a firm which

13

values individualism, competition and visible outputs did not consider relational behaviour as

real work, but just helping out.

Related to the ‘female EI advantage’, numerous commentators contend that the new

(emotionally literate) male is on the rise (Furedi, 2004; Illouz, 2009; Shields and Warner,

2007; Swan, 2008). This refers to the suggestion that society is more accepting of male

emotion (Timmers et al, 2003), termed here as ‘feminine masculinity’ (Furedi, 2004).

Drawing on a therapeutic language and ethos, it is argued that middle class men (in particular)

have just as much access to feminised cultural frames enabling them to think, feel and behave

more in alignment with feminine ideals (Illouz, 2009). If this is the case, men seem to fare

well from this shift in emotion norms. As Michelle Bachelet, Chile’s President, commented

after an incident during which her predecessor President Ricardo Lagos was tearful during a

speech: “The media said ‘It’s his sensitive side coming out’, but when I did it, they said:

‘she’s hysterical’. I’m not whining about it, but come on” (Butler, 2008). Studies corroborate

that controlled emotional expression or ‘weak emotion’ (teary eye) is viewed more positively

in men than women (Shields, Garner, Di Leone and Hadley 2007). Here it is assumed that

emotion is a gentle lapse in otherwise rational behaviour and offers just a glimpse of humanity

but does not express overall weakness.

In their study of beliefs about male and female emotion Timmers, Fischer and Manstead

(2003) found that individuals held stronger stereotypical views of women’s emotions than

men’s. Whereas attitudes were moving away from the ‘unemotional man’, they argue the

‘emotional woman’ stereotype still pervades and is viewed as dysfunctional at work. In

contrast, men are believed to have more emotional sensitivity than women (as well as

displaying more powerful emotional behaviour). As Timmers et al (2003:58) reconcile of

14

men: “This makes them suitable for stereotypically female roles, such as nursing, caring for

children, in addition to stereotypical masculine roles and jobs” (emphasis original). Brackett,

Rivers and Shiffman, (2006) found that through real time observations of performance on a

task-based measure of EI, only men with higher EI scores were evaluated as more socially

competent. One explanation is that when emotion is interpreted in the context of gendered

behaviour, for men it is associated with ability but for women it is still framed within

stereotypes of vulnerability, loss of power and control (Timmers et al, 2003:58) (see also

Shields and Warner, 2007). Swan (2008:99) offers a slightly different explanation:

“it is men’s mobility in relation to gender that provides new workplace capital for them

as men to take up femininities in a way that women cannot take up masculinities. And

it is this flexibility that is the important workplace resource, rather than emotional

subjectivity, per se” (emphasis original).

By ‘softening’ masculinity through male expression and occupation of feminine emotions, the

male advantage is reinstated whilst also serving to distance women from their own

emancipation (Swan, 2008:99). Thus, men can draw on cultural resources in very exclusive

ways, not accessible to women (Swan, 2008). Despite this, the pressure for men to display

more feminine emotion is likely to generate it own stresses and anxieties particularly when

male gendered codes are strongly violated. Adopting feminised masculinity in some

occupations is clearly not valued, as Lindebaum and Fielden (2011) highlight in their study of

EI and construction project management. Equally, male figures in the public eye are still

vulnerable to derision when they express ‘non-maleness’ (Bennett, 2012). However, in

studies of ‘feminine’ professions associations between men, male careerism and managerial

potential lead to positive career opportunities for men (Floge and Merrill, 1986 in Simpson

15

and Lewis, 2007: 46). Findings such as these indicate that even in caring professions,

gendered codes lead to rewards for men.

Drawing on emotional intelligence as masculine skills: ‘manly’ and ‘feminine

masculinity’

A different set of normative values refers to the way the workplace is becoming more macho

and work environment and activities previously viewed as ‘feminine’ are being re-

masculinised (Broadbridge and Simpson, 2011). In accordance with this representation, men

may ascribe to gendered display rules which encourage emotional control and inexpressivity

(Shields, 2002), often articulated as silent, strong, and unemotional. Embracing ‘manly

emotion’ as Shields (2002) describes it, in the form of EI, serves men well as masculine

gendered codes of emotion carry power and influence and attract positive value judgements.

Equally though, women may perform EI abilities in line with male gendered codes of

emotional control, performance and competitiveness. This approach accords with the

argument that the feminine has been colonised by the masculine (Broadbridge and Simpson,

2011). However, when women seek to inhabit socially ascribed ‘masculine’ categories at

work, they are judged more harshly, treated with a lack of credibility or viewed as deficient

(e.g. Kumra and Vinnicombe, 2008; Sheppard, 1989; Rudman, 1998). For example, research

indicates that when women adopt an authoritarian approach they are perceived more

negatively than men and are viewed as domineering (Eagly, Makhijani and Knonsky, 1992).

Numerous accounts note that assertiveness (stereotypically viewed as a male attribute) tends

to be judged positively in men and negatively in women (Grugulis, 2007a) and the display of

initiative is perceived as valuable in male job applicants but viewed as forceful and unwanted

16

in female applicants (Collinson et al, 1990 as cited in Edwards and Wajcman, 2005). As

Grugulis (2007b: 85) notes: “Women who seek to develop and adopt the corporate persona

may be marked down because such behaviour is ‘inappropriate’ for women”.

In the same vein, EI models offer a prescriptive and ‘scientific’ formula to nurturing the social

fabric of work life. This is largely achieved by elevating discourses which promise to ‘crack

the code’ of emotions and highlight EI’s quantifiable nature. For example, Caruso and

Salovey (2004) make the point that emotional intelligence does not threaten reason or logic,

strengthening the case for its rationalisation:

“At first, learning to identify and use the data in feelings might be somewhat awkward

and mechanical. It might seem like following a difficult schematic diagram or a set of

instructions for assembling a complex machine….The good news we offer all

managers is that we have developed a schematic diagram for emotions – a set of

detailed, how-to instructions” (ibid: 24).

Emphasising these explicitly planned steps, they conclude that ‘emotions provide data that

assist us in making rational decisions and behaving in adaptive ways’ (Caruso and Salovey,

2004: 211). Elsewhere, emotional intelligence is marketed as a construct that can be measured

and quantified as ‘a precise metric’ (Goleman, 1998: 5). With these types of messages, the

complex, qualitative and instinctive realm of feelings, care, connection and relationship

management appear translated into a ‘how to’ set of procedural instructions, perhaps with men

in mind. The result is a ‘ “controlled” production of the heart’ (Hatcher, 2008: 161) with

emphasis on performance, quantification and outputs (Lewis and Simpson, 2007: 7). In this

17

way, EI’s agenda clearly has the bottom line in mind with a strong emphasis on a calculative,

emotionally controlled interpretation of the construct.

Drawing on an analysis of socio-cultural resources, this section helps to explain how ‘doing’

or ‘performing’ gender serves to disadvantage women in the workplace when they embody or

transgress male and female conceptions of emotional intelligence. Through articulation of how

gender is being re-negotiated as the ‘female advantage’ and relatedly the ‘emotionally literate

man’, then the ‘re-masculinisation of management’ or ‘macho management’, women seem to

fare less well overall. This is because gendered emotion norms are imposed more forcefully

on women; negative consequences of violating these norms are more salient, particularly in

relation to performance recognition and career development. Given this analysis, women may

be overlooked for promotion or selection for management development, deemed too ‘male’ if

they perform a masculine EI profile. It is also possible they may find it difficult to locate a

mentor with sufficient empathy and insight to understand these tensions. Yet, if they are

excelling as transformational leaders or managers in ‘feminine’ sectors, they may be

concerned that they cannot evade the feminine managerial style without repercussions on

performance evaluations. Equally, they may be out-competed by men who successfully adopt

‘feminine masculinity’ styles. Yet, if they adopt a feminine EI profile in non-management

roles or in masculinised work environments, these skills are likely to be overlooked and

undervalued, as studies indicate.

The masculinisation of management: Implications for EI assessment and therapeutic

training methods

18

This section discusses the effects of EI’s assessment and therapeutic methods in training and

work-based use where masculine management resides as the dominant normative framework.

Compatible with the masculinised paradigm, numerous writers sensitise us to the fact that

employees’ narrow responses to EI are requisite in the way they must control their own

emotions and social behaviour, thus ‘inhibiting personal needs, desires and emotions in

service of organisational needs’ (Matthews, Zeidner and Roberts, 2002: 472; see also

Fineman, 2004; Hatcher, 2008). In this way, EI is consistent with and reinforces

‘masculinity’ as a dominant managerial type (emotional control, rational, quantified use of

emotions for performance). This raises two key concerns. First, when individual assessments

of EI are made during training, how are low EI scores viewed and valued performatively by

the organisation and what is done with this information? Second, what is the individual impact

when EI adopts therapeutic training methods which intrude into sometimes uncomfortable and

complex emotions?

Turning to the first concern, whilst HRD practitioners and consultants are, no doubt, trained to

deal with candidates who come out low on emotional self awareness and self control in a

highly sensitive and non-discriminatory manner, EI assessments makes respondents

vulnerable to organisations which seek to equate low EI scores with masculinised norms of

under-performance, inefficiency and a lack of competitiveness. Just as important, the extent to

which any emotional deficiency identified in an EI assessment may be caused by the

organisation in the first place is assumedly glossed over and remains unchallenged. If EI

scores are used inappropriately and people are ‘labelled’ in ways which convey

dysfunctionality (irrational, lacking in self control, emotional), it could be seen more as a

device which impedes personal development, has negative effects on well-being, career

advancement and self esteem and undermines constructive social relationships at work. This is

19

not to assume that EI cannot be used as a positive development tool but the recent trend of

practitioner oriented literature which attributes management incompetence not just to skill and

attitude deficiencies but also mental stability and ‘personality disorders’ provokes well-

founded fears and concerns over the power that consultants and managers have over diagnosis

and prognosis of individuals’ EI ‘deficiencies’. Where trends for workplace incompetence are

increasingly described in terms of psychiatric disorders such as narcissism, paranoid, passive-

aggressive and sociopathic behaviour (Babiak and Hare, 2007; Cavaiola and Lavender, 2000),

personal apprehension over what happens with an EI classification and the power and

responsibility of those making such assessments becomes a key concern.

The second concern refers to the individual consequences when EI training adopts therapeutic

methods which intrude into sometimes uncomfortable and complex emotions. In practitioner

and critical writings, developing one’s emotional intelligence is frequently paralleled with

psychoanalysis (Kets de Vries, 2006), cognitive behavioural therapy or counselling

(Fineman, 2003; Illouz, 2009; McBride and Maitland, 2002; Stein and Book, 2006; Swan,

2010). Whilst Bagshaw (2000) notes that EI is not meant to operate as a counselling

methodology, there is scope for this to happen in practitioner contexts where trainers have free

rein to draw on therapeutic techniques to enhance EI. It is not difficult to see how individuals

may be encouraged to engage in EI’s therapeutic practices to make sense of themselves,

explore past feelings in relation to current thinking and behaviour and how EI may instantiate

a sense of vulnerability and the need for support (Illouz, 2008). A core aspect of EI is

emotional self awareness and understanding. In effect, one cannot control one’s emotions until

those emotions are better understood (Matthews, Zeidner and Roberts, 2002). To facilitate

this awareness, EI training requests that people talk openly about their emotions, experiences,

attitudes and beliefs in a public arena, whereby the individual becomes the topic.

20

Illustratively, in their comprehensive theory-based approach to EI training, Kornacki and

Caruso (2007) describe self assessment exercises to explore how a person processes,

experiences or stays open to strong emotions. Recommended activities encourage individuals

to reflect on how aware they are of their emotions, the causes of them, ask them to think about

uncomfortable feelings and consequential actions or think about the range and depth of

feelings they experience (Kornacki and Caruso, 2007). This is premised on the basis that EI

training enables people to become more productive and effective at work. However, whilst it

is acknowledged that some employees will be receptive to understanding and discussing

themselves more, others may find this instrumental and threatening, wishing to keep such

private aspects of their emotional lives separate from organisational surveillance (c.f. Martin,

Knopoff and Beckman, 1998). This is most problematic when assessment and training is

mandatory (e.g. ‘in-house’) or culturally normalised rather than a voluntary (internal or

external) endeavour.

Given emotional intelligence training exercises have the potential to release difficult and

complex emotions, there are further issues at stake. Whilst a qualified therapist engages in a

mid or long term contractual counselling commitment to help a client understand and come to

terms with their emotions, a management consultant is contracted in as a fleeting presence for

a one day workshop or week’s development programme. If he or she ‘unlocks’ any personal

issues in a training delegate, there is no obligation or financial incentive to support or counsel

the individual beyond the training period. Perhaps more importantly, EI trainers are more

likely to be management consultants who do not have the requisite counselling or

psychotherapy training to help people delve into and heal their own emotional landscapes,

particularly if this raises deep-seated personal traumas and ‘presenting pasts’. More

conveniently, practitioners encourage participants to talk to their doctor or attend an employee

21

assistance programme (EAP) if the situation warrants a referral. Yet, this practice locates EI

training within a performative model because outsourcing support implies these emotions are

unwanted and surplus to organisational demand. Attending an EI course could be more

damaging than beneficial to an individual, particularly if difficult emotions generate

discomfort and confusion, are viewed as unmanageable or professional help is unwanted, not

provided or unaffordable.

In addition, by ascribing value to organisationally appropriated emotion (understanding and

labelling emotions in prescribed ways to achieve emotional control), EI undermines the

complexity of emotions. We often do not know what emotions are driving us because we

employ defence mechanisms, displacement and screening strategies that enrich our emotional

lives (Fineman, 2000) as well as complicate our understanding of our feelings. Indeed,

feelings are often mixed or ambiguous, changing, contradictory, subjective, sub-conscious

and thus difficult to know, elucidate, convey or read in oneself and others (e.g. Craib, 1994;

Fineman, 2000; 2004; Höpfl and Linstead, 1997; Matthews, Zeidner and Roberts, 2002). EI

training contexts ignore this because assessment measures ascribe to ‘correct’ answers and

‘expert’ scoring which assume complete transparency and uniformity of people’s emotional

terrain. In addition, engaging with this complexity promises no immediate financial gains.

Relatedly, Craib (1994) notes that it can take a long time for people to talk about their feelings

unreservedly in therapy and organisational contexts can be considerably more hostile. In

contrast, EI training courses or workshops prescribe individuals to swiftly and expediently

understand and control their own (and others’ emotions) over a short period of time. Once

emotions have been controlled this then enables an easy adoption of more positive emotional

states to boost optimum levels of performance. As Mayer and Salovey (1997) note EI is

concerned with moderating negative emotions and enhancing positive ones. Such an

22

emphasis on ‘positivity’ has been widely critiqued as part of a positive organisational

scholarship movement (c.f. Fineman, 2006; Hackhman, 2009; Warren, 2010). Ultimately,

emotional intelligence’s affiliation with the positive psychology movement (e.g. Boniwell,

2008; Salovey, Mayer and Caruso, 2002; Seligman, 2002) promotes an agenda which favours

positivity over negativity for organisational gain.

Not surprisingly, EI has been accused of adopting a positive discourse where ‘the good life

appears locked into a deterministic, totalising picture of the positive person’ (Fineman, 2006:

274). This narrative manifests itself in training speak such as ‘self-talk’, ‘controlling negative

feelings’ and ‘challenging or disputing your internal critic’. The goal is a controlled and

competent emotional performance where ‘what is or is not an emotional competence is

identified by those who have the power to do so’, and emotion is viewed in ‘very narrow

managerially defined terms’ ( Bolton, 2005: 36). Frequently this power lies with consultants

and trainers who ascribe value and meaning to emotions (Fineman, 2004). Ultimately, when

masculinsed normative values preside in the workplace, EI training and assessment processes

generate a number of concerns for HRD practitioners and consultants.

Implications for HRD

Drawing on a structural analysis, this paper explores the impact on men and women when

they perform EI as feminine and masculine skills and the effects of EI’s assessment and

therapeutic methods in training and work-based use where masculine management resides as

the dominant normative framework. This final section asks, in light of the discussion of EI

and women’s disadvantages, how can HRD better serve women? And how can HRD better

support EI training in workplaces where masculinised rationality presides?

23

HRD research appears heavily dominated by performative, measurement, legal and financial

concerns. This performance model of HRD is based on masculinised management practices

consistent with those discussed in this article which tend to favour efficiency, objectivity and

rationality (Bierema, 2009; 2010; Lyotard, 1984). These are evident in productivity enhancing

systems and HRD’s increasingly measurable and competitive outlook. Alternative theoretical

approaches and discussion points inform HRD practice to better contest the nature of power

relations and can promote and support alternative organisational models. As Korte (2012: 22)

notes: “While not discarding the important insights of natural science or individualistic

psychologies, there might be compelling value in studying and practicing HRD from a

predominately social and relational perspective.” For example, using sociological theories

and frameworks we can start to see beyond gender differences in EI described by

psychologists as ‘different but complementary’.

However, in HRD studies topics of gender, equality, patriarchy and power have been poorly

addressed to date (Bierema, 2009). Likewise, a lack of critical address in the training and

development literature means issues of gender and power within organisations have been

overlooked (Devos, 1996). As part of this, HRD theory and research tends to be deficient in

alternative conceptual frameworks which would help to analyse and understand social

structures, power dynamics and structural inequalities (Bierema, 2010; Korte, 2012). Thus,

adopting a sociological perspective offers new perspectives for HRD research engaged with

analysing gender effects for emotional intelligence in the workplace. Adopting the framework

of gender as ‘doing’ informs practices to better serve women through various HRD initiatives.

Recommendations include diversity training and mentoring. Equally, highlighting social

24

trends such as the (re)masculinisation of management practices also facilitates ways for HRD

to better support organisations and individuals undergoing EI training and assessment.

Valuing women and their skills through diversity training and mentoring

Diversity training emphasises the value of difference and a heterogenous workforce and refers

to diversity in relation to gender, age, ethnicity, sexuality and class. It is an area of growing

interest within organizations (McGuire and Patteron, 2012). Taylor, Powell and Wrench

(2001) suggest there are three types of diversity training: providing information, changing

attitudes and changing behaviours. Diversity training for managers includes avoiding

discrimination in recruitment and promotion and general diversity training for all staff focuses

on the theme of inclusion for all groups at work (Dobbin, Kim and Kalev, 2011). McGuire

and Bagher (2010) highlight a detailed set of priorities of diversity training at individual,

group and organisational levels. At the individual level they suggest diversity education,

promoting an understanding of the effects of power and privilege, harnessing positive attitudes

and assisting individuals in overcoming inequality barriers. At the group level they note

priorities such as support for inclusive teamwork practices, nurturing respect and tolerance for

diversity, reviewing group values, improved access and support and evaluating selection,

recruitment and promotion practices. At the organisational level they highlight the role of

mentoring and coaching, diversity champions and workshops, corporate climate and company

policies on diversity.

In the context of this paper, diversity training offers opportunities for attitudinal and

behavioural change towards unfair advantages, sexism, gender stereotypying and patriarchy.

HRD professionals can engage in sustained consciousness-raising to help challenge and

25

alleviate discrimination against women. Gender bias training in assessment, performance

appraisal and career development may be one method. Approaches which reframe gender as

‘doing’ in the context of diversity and equality training is another approach (Kelan and

Nentwich, 2009). Challenging assumptions, policies and informal practices that undermine the

valuation of women (and their skills) is critical to addressing these issues.

Whilst many of the practices highlighted by McGuire and Bagher (2010) would help to

address EI and women’s disadvantages explored in this article, the practice of mentoring for

women is deemed integral to this approach. Mentoring provides opportunities for social

support, advice, learning and development, visibility, exposure and enhanced self-efficacy

(e.g. Kram, 1985) and is seen as a valuable career development tool for women. A thriving

mentoring relationship requires openness, honesty, trust, respect and equality. Mentors should

be chosen who are both self aware (e.g. Clutterbuck, 2004) and politically astute to invisible

hierarchical power structures and gender biases to support their mentees in constructive ways.

Clearly the nature, type and context of a mentoring relationship requires reflective

consideration. Given the focus of this piece, women are best advised to seek mentoring

relationships outwith their organisation if they feel their own institutional culture promotes

masculinised practices of competition which may be endorsed by senior mentors and

negatively influence one’s mentoring relationship.

HRD’s role in EI training

In organisations where a masculine performance bias dominates, it is recommended that EI

training provides opportunities for participants to challenge the masculine performance bias

(Bierema, 2009). As part of this, it is recommended that HRD professionals encourage and

26

support the development of emotional competence through reflective practice and experiential

learning which is more representative of society. Such an approach can be achieved through a

subjective, contextualised exploration of emotion intelligence which is meaningful and

significant to managers and employees and the work they do, in their own terms.

In the case of EI assessments, concerns were raised over how low EI scores are viewed and

valued (i.e. emotional, irrational, no self control) and the impact negative valuations may have

on well-being, career development and promotional opportunities. It is HRD practitioners’

responsibility to work purposefully with management to avoid this type of labelling and sense-

making. Participants attending EI training should also be able to determine the degree to

which they are happy to engage with EI’s approaches of personal disclosure in work contexts,

given that EI training consultants and professionals may be ill-equipped to support and

validate people’s genuinely complex and uncomfortable emotions. Relatedly, it is advisable

for organisations to vet professional qualifications and credentials of EI trainers to ensure they

are capable of managing difficult emotional situations.

Overall though, many of the recommendations made here require systemic and cultural

changes to shift masculinised norms and values towards those which are more representative

of society. At worst, patriarchal structures remain impervious to change, and at best take time,

energy and skill to challenge and transform. Much of this work must commence through

greater discussion of power structures in scholarly research which can be filtered through to

HRD educational programmes. Currently, inadequate frameworks for analysing and

understanding power and structural inequalities in HRD research (Bierema, 2010) makes it

equally challenging to contest the nature of power relations in HRD practice. Core to this

approach is introducing HRD/HRM students to more critical topics in HRD university

27

programmes. If HRD graduates working as professionals cannot themselves identify and

articulate deeper, invisible issues of power dynamics and patriarchy then it is foolish to

assume they can skilfully develop this type of awareness in the workplace.

Conclusion

In a recent publication, Korte (2012:23) asks the question: “For example, what would a human

resource intervention look like if it started as an attempt to better understand the larger

sociocultural structures of the organization and society rather than the needs of individuals as

resources in the organization?” (Korte, 2012 :23). Using gender as ‘doing’ as an analytical

framework, we can start to see beyond gender differences in EI described by psychologists as

‘different but complementary’. This paper encourages HRD specialists to be mindful of

systemic and cultural changes required to effect changes in masculinised work cultures and

management practices which impact on how women and their skills are valued in the

workplace and how EI is used in assessment and training contexts. This necessitates an

understanding of organisational socio-cultural structures and how they mirror wider societal

values and dominant groups. When we start to view the work of HRD professionals and the

employees they serve ‘as grounded in the social realm’, (Korte, 2012:24), future avenues

open up for new research projects. Based on the analysis in this paper, it is strongly argued

that more empirical research be conducted on EI, gendered skills and the role and impact on

HRD using alternative analytical tools, exploring a variety of organisational and sector

contexts.

References

28

Alvesson, M. and Billing, Y.D. (2009). Understanding gender and organisations. London:

Sage.

Ashkanasy, N.M. and Daus, C.S. (2005). Rumors of the death of emotional intelligence in

organizational behaviour are vastly exaggerated. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 26

(4), 441-452.

Babaik, P. and Hare, R.D. (2006). Snakes in suits: when psychopaths go to work. New York:

Regan Books.

Bagshaw, M. (2000). Emotional intelligence – training people to be affective so they can be

effective. Industrial and Commercial Training, 32(2): 61-65.

Bennett, C. (2012). Its time we ditched this bogus notion of ‘real manhood’. The Observer,

Sunday 23 September.

Bharwaney, G. (2006). Emotionally intelligent living. Carmarthen, Wales: Crown House

Bierema, L. (2009). Critiquing Human Resource Development’s dominant masculine

rationality and evaluating its impact. Human Resource Development Review, 8(1), 68-96.

Bierema, L. (2010). Resisting HRD's resistance to diversity. Journal of European Industrial

Training, 34(6): 565 – 576.

Bolton, S.C. (2005). Emotion management in the workplace. London: Palgrave.

29

Boniwell, I. (2008). Positive Psychology in a Nutshell. London: PWBC.

Boyatzis, R.E., Stubbs, E.C. and Taylor, S.N. (2002). Learning cognitive and emotional

intelligence competencies through graduate management education. Academy of Management

Learning and Education, 1(2): 150-162.

Brackett, M.A., Rivers, S.E. and Shiffman, S. (2006). Relating emotional abilities to social

functioning: A comparison of self-report and performance measures of emotional intelligence.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4): 780-795.

Brackett, M.A. and Salovey, P. (2004). Measuring emotional intelligence with the Mayer-

Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). In G. Geher, (Ed). Measuring

emotional intelligence: common ground and controversy. Hauppauge, N.Y: Nova Science

Publishing.

Broadbridge, A. and Simpson, R. (2011). 25 years on: Reflecting on the past and looking to

the future in gender and management research. British Journal of Management, 22(3): 470-

483.

Brody, L.R. and Hall, J.A. (2008). Gender and emotion in context. In M. Lewis, J.M.

Haviland-Jones, and L. Feldman Barrett (Eds). The Handbook of Emotions, NY: Guilford

Publications.

Butler, K. (2008). Women judged more harshly. The Independent, Saturday 5 April.

30

Byron, K. (2008). Differential effects of male and female managers’ non-verbal emotional

skills on employees’ ratings. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(2): 118-134.

Caruso, D.R and Salovey, P. (2004). The emotionally intelligent manager. San Francisco:

JosseyBass.

Cavaiola, A.A. and Lavender, N.J. (2000). Toxic coworkers: how to deal with dysfunctional

people on the job. NY: New Harbinger Publications.

Ciarrochi, J., Hynes, K., & Crittenden, N. (2005). Can men do better if they try harder? Sex

and motivational effects on emotional awareness. Cognition and Emotion, 19 (1), 133–141.

Clarke, N. (2006). Emotional intelligence training: a case of caveat emptor. Human Resource

Development Review, 5(4), 422-441.

Clegg, S. and Baumeleer, C. (2010). Essai: from iron cages to liquid modernity in

organisational analysis. Organisation Studies, 31(12), 1713-1733.

Clutterbuck, D. (2004). Everyone needs a mentor: Fostering talent in your organisation.

London: Chartered Institute of Personnel Development.

Craib, I. (1994). The importance of disappointment. Oxon: Routledge.

31

Davies, C. (1996). The sociology of professions and the profession of gender. Sociology,

30(4): 661-678.

Day, A.L. and Carroll, S.A. (2004). Using an ability-based measure of emotional intelligence

to predict individual performance, group performance, and group citizenship behaviours.

Personality and Individual Differences, 36 (6), 1443-1458

Day, A.L. and Kelloway, E.K. (2004). Emotional intelligence in the workplace: rhetoric and

reality. In G. Geher (Ed). Measuring emotional intelligence: common ground and controversy.

Hauppauge, N.Y: Nova Science Publishing.

Devos, A. (1996). Gender, work and workplace learning. Studies in Continuing Education,

18, 110-121.

Dobbin, F., Kim, S., and Kalev, A. (2011). You can’t always get what you need:

Organisational determinants of diversity programmes. American Sociological Review, 76(3):

386-411.

Eagly, A.H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C. and van Engen, M.L. (2003) Transformational,

transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles; a meta analysis comparing women and men.

Psychological Bulletin, 129 (4), 569-591.

Eagly, A.H., Makhijani, M. and Knonsky, B. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: a

meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111(1), 3-22

32

Edwards, P. and Wajcman, J. (2005). The politics of working life. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Elfenbein, H. A., Beaupré, M. G., Lévesque, M. & Hess, U. (2007). Toward a dialect theory:

Cultural differences in the expression and recognition of posed facial expressions. Emotion, 7,

131-146.

Fambrough, M.J. and Hart, R.K. (2008). Emotions in leadership development: a critique of

emotional intelligence. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(5), 740-758.

Feldman Barrett, L., Lane, R.D., Sechrest, L. and Schwartz, G.E. (2000). Sex differences in

emotional awareness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9), 1027-1035.

Feldman Barrett, L., Mesquita, B, and Gendron, M. (2011). Context in emotion perception.

Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20 (5), 286-290.

Feldman Barrett, L., Robin, L., Pietromonaco, P.R. and Eyssell, K.M. (1998). Are women the

“more emotional” sex? Evidence from emotional experiences in social context. Cognition and

Emotion, 12(4): 555-578.

Fineman, S. (2000). Commodifying the emotionally intelligent. In Fineman, S. (ed.) Emotions

in organizations. London: Sage.

Fineman, S. (2003). Understanding emotions at work. London: Sage.

33

Fineman, S. (2004). Getting the measure of emotion – and the cautionary tale of emotional

intelligence. Human Relations, 57(6), 719-740.

Fineman, S. (2006). On being positive: concerns and counterpoints. Academy of Management

Review, 31 (2), 270-291.

Fletcher, J.K. (1999). Disappearing acts: gender, power and relational practice at work.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Francis, H. and Keegan, A. (2006). The changing face of HRM: in search of balance. Human

Resource Management Journal, 16(3), 231-249.

Furedi, F. (2004). Therapy Culture: Cultivating Vulnerability in an Uncertain Age. London:

Routledge

Geher, G. and Renstrom, K.L. (2004). Measurement issues in emotional intelligence research.

In G. Geher (Ed). Measuring emotional intelligence: common ground and controversy.

Hauppauge, N.Y: Nova Science Publishing.

Gohm, C.L. and Clore, G.L. (2000). Individual differences in emotional experience: Mapping

available scales to processes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26 (6) 679-697.

Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. London: Bloomsbury.

34

Grant, J. (1988). Women as managers: what can they offer to organisations? Organisational

Dynamics, 1, 56-63.

Grugulis, I. (2007a). The human side of skills and knowledge. In S.C. Bolton and M.

Houlihan, (Eds). Searching for the human in human resource management: theory, practice

and workplace contexts. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Grugulis, I. (2007b). Skills, training and human resource development: A critical text.

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hackman, J.R. (2009). The perils of positivity. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 30, 309-

319.

Hatcher, C. (2003). Refashioning a passionate manager: gender at work. Gender, Work and

Organisation, 10(4), 391-412.

Hatcher, C. (2008). Becoming a successful corporate character and the role of emotion

management. In S. Fineman (ed.). The emotional organisation: passions and powers. Oxford:

Blackwell.

Hines, R. (1992). Account: filling the negative space. Accounting, Organisation and Society,

17 (3-4), 314-41.

Höpfl, H. and Linstead, S. (1997). Introduction: Learning to Feel and Feeling to Learn:

Emotion and Learning in Organizations. Management Learning, 28(1), 5-12

35

Hughes, J. (2005). Bringing emotion to work: emotional intelligence, employee resistance and

the reinvention of character. Work, Employment and Society, 19(3), 603-625.

Illouz, E. (2008). Saving the modern soul: therapy, emotions, and the culture of self-help.

London: University of California Press.

Illouz, E. (2009). Emotional capital, therapeutic language, and the habitus of “The new man”.

In N.C. Karafyllis and G. Ulshőfer (Eds). Sexualised Brains: Scientific Modelling of

Emotional Intelligence from a Cultural Perspective. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Jordan, P., Ashkanasy, N. and Härtel, C. and Hooper, G. (2002). Workgroup emotional

intelligence: Scale development and relationship to team process effectiveness and goal focus.

Human Resources Management Review, 12, 195-214.

Joseph, D.L. and Newman, D.A. (2010). Emotional Intelligence: an integrative meta-analysis

and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 54-78.

Karim, J., Weisz, R. (2010). Cross-Cultural Research on the Reliability and Validity of the

Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). Cross-Cultural Research, 44

(4), 374-404.

Kelan, E. and Nentwich, J. (2009) The value of seeing gender as a ‘doing’. In M. Özbilgin

(Ed). Equality, Diversity and Inclusion at Work: A Research Companion. Cheltenham:

Edward Elgar.

36

Kets de Vries, M (2006). The leader on the couch: a clinical approach to changing people

and organisations. Chicester: John Wiley and Sons.

Kornacki, S.A. and Caruso, D.R. (2007). A theory-based, practical approach to emotional

intelligence training: Ten ways to increase emotional skills. In J. Ciarrochi and J.D. Mayer

(Eds). Applying Emotional Intelligence: A practitioner’s guide. New York: Psychology Press.

Korte, R. (2012). Exploring the social foundations of Human Resource Development: A

theoretical framework for research and practice. Human Resource Development Review,

11(1), 6-30.

Kram, K.E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental Relationships in Organisational Life.

Scott Foresman, Glenview, IL.

Kumra, S. and Vinnicombe, S. (2008). A study of the promotion to partner process in a

professional services firm: how women are disadvantaged. British Journal of Management,

19: S65-S74.

Lewis, P. and Simpson, R. (2007). Gender and emotions: introduction. In P. Lewis and R.

Simpson (Eds). Gendering emotions in organisations. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Lindebaum, D. (2009). Rhetoric or remedy? A critique on developing emotional intelligence.

Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8(2), 225-137.

37

Lindebaum, D. and Cassell, C. (2012). A contradiction in terms? Making sense of emotional

intelligence in a construction management environment. British Journal of Management, 23

(1), 65-79.

Lindebaum D, and Fielden S (2011) “It’s good to be angry”: Enacting anger in construction

project management to achieve perceived leader effectiveness. Human Relations, 64(3), 437–

458.

Lyotard, J.F. (1984), The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. University of

Minnesota

Press, Minneapolis, MN.

Marks, M. A. and Panzer, F.J. (2004). The influence of team monitoring on team processes

and performance, Human Factors, 17(1), 25-41.

Marshall, J. (1993). Organisational communication from a feminist perspective. In S. Deetz

(Ed) Communication Yearbook, 16. Newbury Park: Sage.

Martin,J., Knopoff, K. and Beckman, C. (1998). An alternative to bureaucratic impersonality

and emotional labor: bounded emotionality at The Body Shop. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 43 (2), 429-69.

Matthews, G., Emo, A.K. and Roberts, R.D. (2006) What is this thing called emotional

intelligence? In K.R. Murphy (Ed.). A critique of emotional intelligence: what are the

problems and wow can they be fixed? New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

38

Matthews, G., Zeidner, M. and Roberts. R.D. (2002). Emotional intelligence: science and

myth. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

Matthews, G., Zeidner, M. and Roberts, R.D. (2007). Emotional intelligence: consensus,

controversies and questions. In G. Matthews, M. Zeidner, and R.D. Roberts (Eds.). The

science of emotional intelligence: knowns and unknowns. New York: OUP.

Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D. and Salovey, P. (1999), Emotional intelligence meets traditional

standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27, 267-298.

Mayer, J.D. and Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey and D.

Sluyter (Eds). Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications.

New York: Perseus Books Group.

McBride, P. and Maitland, S. (2002). The EI advantage: putting emotional intelligence into

practice. Maidenhead: Mcgraw-Hill.

McClure, E.B. (2000). A meta-analytic review of sex differences in facial expression

processing and their development in infants, children and adolescents. Psychological Bulletin,

126 (3), 424-453.

McEnrue, M.P. and Groves, K. (2006). Choosing among tests of emotional intelligence: What

is the evidence? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 17(1), 9-42.

39

McGuire, D. and Bagher, M. (2010). Diversity training in organisations: an introduction.

Journal of

European Industrial Training, 34 (6), 493 – 505.

McGuire, D. and Patterson, N. (2012) Diversity in organisations. In C. Scott and M. Byrd

(Eds). Handbook of Research on Workforce Diversity in a Global Society: Technologies and

Concepts. Harisburg, PA/US: IGI Global.

Murphy, K.R. (2006). Four conclusions about emotional intelligence. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.).

A critique of emotional intelligence: what are the problems and how can they be fixed? New

Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

O’Boyle, E.H., Humphrey, R.H., Pollack, J.M. and Hawver, T.H. and Story, P.A. (2011). The

relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of

Organizational Behaviour, 32 (5), 788-818.

Opengart, R. (2005) Emotional Intelligence and Emotion Work: Examining Constructs from

an Interdisciplinary Framework. Human Resource Development Review, 4 (49), 49-62.

Palmer. B., Gignac, G., Manocha, R. and Stough. C. (2005). A psychometric evaluation of the

Mayer-Salovey-Caruso emotional intelligence test version 2.0, Intelligence, 33, 285-305.

Peterson, D. (1996). Executive coaching at work: the art of one-on-one change. Consulting

Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48 (2), 78-86.

40

Reilly, P. (2005). Teaching law students how to feel: using negotiations training to increase

emotional intelligence. Negotiation Journal, 21(2), 301-314.

Ross-Smith, A., Kornberger, M., Anandakumar, A. and Cheterman, C. (2007). Women

executives: managing emotions at the top. In P. Lewis and R. Simpson (Eds.). Gendering

emotions in organisations. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Rubin, R., Munz, D. and Bommer, W. (2005). Leading from within: The effects of emotion

recognition and personality on transformational leadership behaviour. Academy of

Management Journal, 48(5), 845-858.

Rudman, L.A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of

counter stereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

74 (3), 629-645.

Salovey, P., Mayer, J.D. and Caruso, D. (2002). The positive psychology of emotional

intelligence. In C.R. Synder and S.J.Lopez (Eds). The Handbook of Positive Psychology.

Oxford: OUP

Schutte, N.S., Malouff, J.M., Hall, L.E., Haggerty, D.J., Cooper, J.T., Golden, C.J and

Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence.

Personality and Individual Differences, 25 (2), 167-177.

Seligman, M. (2002). Authentic Happiness. New York: Free Press.

41

Shackelford, S., Wood, W. and Worchel, S. (1996). Behavioural styles and the influence of

women in mixed-sex groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59: 284-293.

Sheppard, D. (1989). Organizations, power and sexuality: The image and self-image of

women

managers. In J. Hearn, D. Sheppard, P. Tancred-Sherrif & G. Burrell (Eds.), The sexuality of

organization. London: Sage.

Shields, S.A. (2002). Speaking from the heart: gender and the social meaning of emotion.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Shields, S.A., Garner, D.N., Di Leone, B. and Hadley, A.M. (2007 ). Gender and emotion. In

J.E> Stes and J.H. Turner (Eds). Handbook of the Sociology of Emotions. Springer: NY.

Shields, S.A. and Warner, L.R. (2007). Gender and the emotion politics of emotional

intelligence. In S. Fineman (Ed.), The Emotional Organization: Critical Voices. London:

Blackwell.

Simpson, R. and Lewis, P. (2007). Voice, Visibility and the Gendering of Organisations.

Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Slaski, M. and Cartwright, S. (2003). Emotional intelligence training and its implications for

stress, health and performance. Stress and Health, 19 (4), 233-239.

42

Stein, S.J. and Book, H. (2006). The EQ edge: emotional intelligence and your success.

Mississauga, Canada: John Wiley and Sons.

Sunderland, R. (2009). After the crash, Iceland’s women lead the rescue. The Guardian, 22

February.

Swan, E. (2008). ‘You make me feel like a woman’: Therapeutic cultures and the contagion of

feminity. Gender, Work and Organisation, 15(1), 88-107.

Swan, E. (2010). Worked up selves: Personal development workers, self-work and therapeutic

cultures. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

Taylor, P., Powell, D. and Wrench, J. (2001). The evaluation of anti-discrimination training

activities in the United Kingdom. International Migration Papers 21, Centre for Research in

Ethnic Relations, University of Warwick.

Taylor, S. and Tyler, M. (2000). Emotional labour and sexual difference in the airline

industry. Work, Employment and Society, 14 (1), 77-95.

Timmers, M., Fischer, A.H. and Manstead, A.S.R. (2003). Ability versus vulnerability: Beliefs

about men’s and women’s emotional behaviour. Cognition and Emotion, 17(1), 41-63.

van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of

Management, 37(4), 1228-1261.

43

van Rooy, D. L., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2006).Multiplying

intelligences: Are general, emotional, and practical intelligences equal? In K. R. Murphy (Ed.)

A critique of emotional intelligence . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Warren, S. (2010). What’s wrong with being positive?. In P.A. Linley, S. Harrington and N.

Garcea (eds). Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology and Work. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Weinberger, L.A. (2002). Emotional Intelligence: Its Connection to HRD Theory and Practice.

Human Resource Development Review, 1 (2), 215-243

West, C. and Zimmerman, D.H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1(2):,125-151.

West, C. and Zimmerman, D.H. (2009). Accounting for doing gender. Gender and Society,

23(1), 112-122.

44