S t r e s s a n d H e a l t hStress and Health 18: 63–68 (2002)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/smi.926

Hea l t h, p e r f o rmance andemo t i ona l i n t e l l i g enc e: anexp l o r a t o ry s t udy o f r e t a i lmanage r s†

Mark Slaski1* and Susan Cartwright2

1 Department of Psychology, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK2 Manchester School of Management, UMIST, Manchester, UK

SummaryContemporary theories place emotions and self-regulation at the centre of a dynamic process ofstress. Emotional Intelligence (EQ) is the ability to perceive, understand and reflectively manageone’s own emotions and those of others. This study, which was situated within the managementpopulation �n D 224� of a large retail organization, investigates the relationship between a measureof EQ, subjective stress, distress, general health, morale, quality of working life and managementperformance. Significant correlations in the expected direction were found, indicating that managerswho scored higher in EQ suffered less subjective stress, experienced better health and well-being, anddemonstrated better management performance. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Key Wordsemotional intelligence; stress and emotions; stressand performance

Introduction

Transactional models of stress (Cox 1978; Cum-mings & Cooper, 1979, 1998; Lazarus 1976)emphasize the role of individual factors in mod-erating the stress response. Whilst certain causalfactors transcend individual differences, it is nowunderstood that experiences of stress or negativeemotions are moderated by the way in which indi-viduals appraise and perceive their relationshipwith the environment. The role played by indi-vidual characteristics, such as Type ‘A’ Behaviour

Ł Correspondence to: Mark Slaski, Department of Psy-chology, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, HertsAL10 9AB, UK.† Based on a paper presented at the 3rd World Congresson Stress 24–27 September 2000, Dublin, Ireland.

(Friedman & Rosenman, 1974), Locus of Control(Rotter, 1966), Hardiness (Kobasa, 1979, 1982)and Self-esteem (Rector & Roger, 1997), have beenthe focus of numerous research studies as well asindividual differences in coping resources and styles(e.g. Endler & Parker, 1994). In contrast, there hasbeen little consideration given in the stress litera-ture to the investigation of Emotional Intelligence(EQ) as an individual difference.

EQ relates to individual variation in the abilityto effectively perceive, understand, integrate anduse emotional information in moment-by-moment,day-to-day functioning. Stein and Book (2000)refer to EQ as a set of skills which equate withbeing ‘streetwise’. According to their definition,individuals who are highly emotional intelligentare able to intuitively grasp what others wantand need; are aware of their own strengths andweaknesses; are able to remain unruffled by stressand are generally regarded as having good ‘peopleskills’.

The concept of emotional intelligence was firstlabelled by Salovey and Mayer (1990) as being a

Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

M. Slaski and S. Cartwright

form of social intelligence, separable from generalintelligence, which lies at the intersection betweenemotion and cognition (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso,2000). EQ is considered to comprise of fivecharacteristics:

(1) the ability to understand and integrate emo-tions with cognitions

(2) the ability to be able to manage such emotions(3) the ability to appropriately control and regulate

emotions(4) the ability to recognize, understand and

empathize with the emotions of others(5) the ability to manage relationships

An interesting aspect of EQ is that it has beenshown to increase with age and seems to be linkedto maturity (Goleman, 1995). Consequently, it issuggested that through practice and commitmentEQ can be learnt, developed and improved.

Over the last 10 years, EQ has been the subjectof much debate as to whether it is an independentfactor of intelligence or a cluster of personality traits(Davies, Stankov, & Roberts, 1998). Discussionhas also focused on issues of measurement andthe extent to which EQ can be developed throughtraining (Barling, Slater, & Kelloway, 2000; Mayeret al., 2000; Perkins, 1994).

Because EQ influences an individual’s ability tocope effectively with environmental demands andpressures, it is claimed that EQ is an importantfactor in determining life successes and psychologi-cal well-being (Bar-On, 1997; Goleman, 1995). Upuntil now, interest in the implications of EQ inthe workplace have focused on the link betweenEQ and leadership behaviours (Dulewicz & Higgs,1999; Goleman, 1998). Two recent empirical stud-ies, one in North America (Barling et al., 2000) andthe other in Australia (Palmer, Walls, Burgess, &Stough, 2000) have shown significant correlationsbetween emotional intelligence and three aspects oftransformational leadership, namely idealized influ-ence, inspirational motivation and individualizedconsideration. This study investigates the relation-ship between emotional intelligence, stress, healthand performance amongst managers in the retailindustry. The rationale being that if such a relation-ship exists then programmes aimed at increasingemotional intelligence may be useful avenues toexplore as a means of stress reduction and healthpromotion.

Method

Sample and design

Subjects for this study �n D 320� were randomlyselected from a population of middle managersworking for a major UK retailer (of 180,000employees). Each subject was allocated a codenumber so that objective performance data could bematched with self-report measures. Subjects weremailed a questionnaire pack containing two sets ofquestionnaires, an explanatory letter and a returnaddressed envelope.

Subjects were asked to complete a self-reportquestionnaire which incorporated measures ofemotional intelligence, general health and subjec-tive stress. In addition, personal and demographicdata relating to age, gender, employment historyand lifestyle habits were also collected. The secon-der questionnaire comprised a management perfor-mance measure which was coded and sealed insidea further envelope with another return addressedenvelope. Subjects were instructed to pass this enve-lope to their immediate line-manager. Subjects weretold that this envelope contained a further question-naire asking their line-manager to comment on anumber of aspects of their work performance.

For the data to be included, two sets ofquestionnaires had to be returned from bothparticipant and the participant’s line-manager.Participants were informed that all data wouldbe treated as confidential, and the researcher wasthe only one to have access to individual data. Atotal of 221 completed questionnaires were receivedfrom managers, and 191 completed questionnaireswere received from line-managers. This representsa response rate of 69 per cent. Data was analysedusing the Statistical Package for Social Sciences(SPSS: Version 8).

Measures

The questionnaire pack contained the followingmeasures.

Emotional intelligence: Bar-On EQ-i (1997).Bar-On (1997) defines emotional intelligence as‘an array of non-cognitive capabilities, competen-cies and skills that influence one’s ability to succeedin coping with environmental demands and pres-sures’. Bar-On’s self-report Emotional Intelligenceinventory consists of 133 items rated on a 5-pointLikert-type scale. Respondents are asked to indi-cate the degree to which each statement is true of

Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Stress and Health 18: 63–68 (2002)64

Health, performance and emotional intelligence

the way they feel, think and act in most situations.Responses range from ‘not true of me’ (1) to ‘trueof me’ (5).

These items are arranged on five factors: intrap-ersonal, interpersonal, adaptability, stress manage-ment and mood, themselves made up of a further 15subscales. Each subscale is transformed into a stan-dard score and the total emotional intelligence scoreand factor scores are derived by calculating scoresacross the 15 subscales. Normative data based onlarge samples is available. The instrument has estab-lished reliability and validity (Bar-On, 1997) andhas been used as a research instrument with man-agerial populations (e.g. Barling et al., 2000).

General health questionnaire (28 item) GHQ28. The GHQ (Goldberg & Williams 1988) isdesigned to assess an individual’s ability to carryout normal ‘healthy’ functions, rather than moresevere disorders such as psychotic depression oracute schizophrenia. The GHQ was specificallydesigned for research purposes and has been widelyused in non-clinical settings (Bowling, 1997).The GHQ 28 comprises of 28 items which askrespondents about recently experienced symptomsor behaviours. Responses are rated on a 4-pointscale of severity ranging, from ‘less better thanusual’ to ‘much more worse than usual’. The Likert-style option of scoring was chosen. The items arearranged on four subscales: somatic, anxiety, socialdysfunction and depression. The Likert scoringmethod was used because it has been demonstratedthat when scored in this way, better correlationswith clinical measures are obtained. Thus scores foreach subscale range between 0 and 21 points, andthe scores for overall severity range from 0 to 84.

The validity and reliability of the GHQ is wellestablished (Goldberg & Hillier, 1979; Goldberg& Williams, 1988), and it is believed that the GHQ28 is a valid and reliable measure of emotionalwell-being.

Queensland public agency staff survey(QPASS)—psychological outcomes. The QPASS(Hart, Griffin, Wearing, & Cooper, 1996; Hart,Wearing, & Headey, 1993, 1995) is a survey instru-ment designed to investigate occupational stressand the quality of work life. In its original form itincorporates four scales which can be used inde-pendently. In this study, the 20-item psychologicaloutcomes scale was used as a measure of psycho-logical health. Responses are rated on a 7-pointscale ranging from ‘not at all’ (1) to ‘all the time’

(7). The measure yields scores for quality of worklife, individual morale and psychological distress.Item scores were summed and standardized to apercentage in order to provide a common metricfor analysis with other measures. To date, thereare no reported validity studies but the reliabilitycoefficients for the scale items range from 0.63 to0.90 (Hart et al., 1996).

Subjective measure of stress. In addition tothe above measures of health and well-being,respondents were asked to indicate on a singlescale ranging from 1 to 10 the extent to whichthey perceived their life to be stressful at thepresent time. This subjective measure reflects thephenomenological nature of the study, and issupported by definitions of stress that include theindividual’s ‘perception’ of stress as a central issuein a stress process (e.g. McGrath, 1976).

Management performance. This was based onthe host organization’s own competency frame-work which consists of 16 critical success factorswhich it currently uses to assess management per-formance, e.g. setting objectives, planning andorganizing, decision making etc. This was com-pleted by the subject’s immediate line-manager whowas asked to rate their performance against 64items using a 4-point response scale. An overallmanagement performance range score was calcu-lated by summing the item scores. The overall scorewas then converted to a percentage to provide acommon metric in line with scores on other mea-sures.

Additional health data. Measures were takenrelating to the respondent’s frequency of exercise,height and weight. Participants were also asked ifthey maintained a desired body weight.

Results

Sample description

Of the 224 managers who returned questionnaires,69 per cent were male �n D 154� and 31 per centwere female �n D 70�. The majority (77 per cent)were non-graduates and the mean age was 37 years(range 23–54 years). The majority (67 per cent)had worked for the organization for over 10 years.An analysis of these sample data showed thatthey were representative of the wider populationof managers in the organization. No investigation

Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Stress and Health 18: 63–68 (2002) 65

M. Slaski and S. Cartwright

was carried out as to why some managers failedto complete and return questionnaires. It is notbelieved that a lack of response was significantor introduced any bias into the data and that theresponse rate was sufficiently high enough to bemeaningful.

Emotional intelligence. The sample mean scorewas 97.4 (SD 12.5) which is slightly lower than thegeneral population mean of 100.

General health (GHQ 28). The sample mean scorewas 19.28 (range 4–58) �SD D 10.30�

QPASS. For distress, the sample mean score was30.13 (min. 0; max. 93) (SD 21.4). For morale,the sample mean score was 58.09 (min. 5; max.100) (SD 20.8). For quality of working life, thesample mean score was 48.09 (min. 0; max. 100)(SD 22.2).

Unfortunately, normative data for this instru-ment has not yet been published.

Subjective measure of stress. The sample meanscore was 5.14 (min. 1.00; max. 10) (SD 2.25).

Management performance. For managementperformance, the sample mean score was 58.1 (min.14.6; max. 97.0) (SD 15.4).

Table I shows the correlations of the mainresearch variables with each other.

Table II shows a correlation between all the mainresearch variables and the main subscale factors ofthe EQ-i.

High EQ versus low EQ

Further analysis was conducted by separating thesample into two groups around the mean, a high EQgroup �EQ > 94.70� and a low EQ group �EQ <94.70�. These groups were then compared withthe main research variables: GHQ-28, Distress,Morale, Quality of Life, Perceived Stress andManagement Performance. Levine’s test showedthat there were significant differences in variance,therefore equal variances were not assumed. Resultsare shown in Table III.

Gender

Independent t-tests were conducted in order toestablish gender differences. Whilst there were nosignificant differences in the overall EQ score,females scored significantly higher than males onthe subscales: emotional self-awareness; interper-sonal relationships; empathy and social responsi-bility �p < 0.05�. Males scored significantly higherthan females on the subscales: self-regard and real-ity testing �p < 0.05�. These results are in line with

Table I. Correlation matrix: main research variables.

EQ GHQ 28 Morale Distress QOWL Stress Performance

EQ 1.000GHQ 28 �0.501ŁŁ 1.000Morale 0.547ŁŁ �0.539ŁŁ 1.000Distress �0.567ŁŁ 0.659ŁŁ �0.711ŁŁ 1.000QOWL 0.409ŁŁ �0.462ŁŁ 0.729ŁŁ �0.663ŁŁ 1.000Stress �0.406ŁŁ 0.605ŁŁ �0.476ŁŁ 0.623ŁŁ �0.509ŁŁ 1.000Performance 0.219ŁŁ �0.365ŁŁ 0.268ŁŁ �0.422ŁŁ 0.263ŁŁ �0.309ŁŁ 1.000

Significant p values <0.01 level are represented byŁŁ.

Table II. Pearson moment correlations between EQ-i subscales and the major variablesGHQ 28, Distress, Morale, Quality of Working Life and Management Performance�N D 221�.

EQ-I scales GHQ 28 Morale Distress QOWL Stress Performance

EQ total �0.501Ł 0.547Ł �0.567Ł 0.409Ł 0.406Ł 0.219Ł

Intrapersonal �0.490Ł 0.514Ł �0.544Ł 0.386Ł 0.384Ł 0.233Ł

Interpersonal �0.116 0.384Ł �0.224Ł 0.224Ł 0.127 0.010Adaptability �0.388Ł 0.390Ł �0.427Ł 0.284Ł 0.302Ł 0.181Ł

Stress management �0.393Ł 0.343Ł �0.434Ł 0.271Ł 0.378Ł 0.152Ł

General mood �0.474Ł 0.488Ł �0.528Ł 0.379Ł 0.367Ł 0.227Ł

Significant p values <0.05 level are represented byŁ.

Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Stress and Health 18: 63–68 (2002)66

Health, performance and emotional intelligence

Table III. Independent samples t-test showing significant differences between high and low EQ for mainvariables.

Variables N Low EQ < 94.70 N High EQ > 94.70 Two-tailed significance

GHQ-28 110 23.59 111 15.00 0.000Morale 110 48.07 112 67.92 0.000Psychological distress 110 40.19 112 20.24 0.000QWL 109 39.76 112 56.02 0.000Stressed 107 6.05 114 4.29 0.000Management performance 97 54.72 99 61.45 0.002

those found by Bar-On (1997). As regards the othermain variables, there were no significant differencesbetween males and females with the exceptionof management performance where females sig-nificantly outperformed males (male mean D 56.3,female mean D 62.0, p < 0.05).

Age

Pearson moment correlations were produced forall the relevant variables and significant but lowpositive correlations were found between age andmorale (0.158, p < 0.05), and age and quality ofworking life (0.150, p < 0.05). Contrary to Gole-man’s suggestion (1995), no relationship betweenage and EQ was discovered.

Additional health data

When calculating the Occupational Health Indica-tor of Body Mass using data collected of height andweight, 60.4 per cent of the sample were deemedas overweight. This corresponds with the 55.8 percent who reported that they do not maintain adesired weight. Results also showed that partici-pants who considered themselves not to maintaina desired body weight reported significantly moreill-health problems on the GHQ 28 than did partic-ipants who reported maintaining a desired weight.Weight was not a significant factor in any of theother variables measuring Stress, Distress, Morale,Emotional Intelligence or Quality of Working Life.

The data collected on frequency of exercise pro-vided the opportunity to dichotomize the sampleinto respondents who took exercise (always/often,29 per cent of total sample) and those who took lit-tle or no exercise (rarely/never, 43 per cent of totalsample). Analysis showed that exercisers scoredsignificantly higher on the EQ-i subscales ‘self-actualization’, ‘optimism’ and ‘happiness’. Also,exercisers showed significantly better health whenmeasured on the GHQ 28 than those who did notexercise. Generally exercisers scored better than

non-exercisers on all measures of Stress, Distressand Morale.

Discussion

The findings suggest a significant link betweenemotional intelligence and health and performance.However, in a study of this nature it is not possibleto establish the direction of causality.

The findings are encouraging in that emotionalintelligence may play an important role in moder-ating the stress process and increasing individualresilience. And, perhaps more importantly, if it canbe developed through training, then it has signifi-cant potential as a stress management technique.

Contrary to expectations (Goleman, 1995), therewere no differences between males and females interms of total EQ scores. However, there weresignificant differences on a number of subscales sim-ilar to those found by Bar-On (1997). These mayreflect different gender-related socialization expe-riences. For example, males scored significantlyhigher than females on the subscale, self-regard.The items relating to self-regard emphasize con-tentment with aspects of physical appearance forwhich there may be greater societal pressures and/orexpectations for women than men. These genderdifferences may have implications for the designand content of programmes to develop emotionalintelligence.

The results concerning exercise and body weightalso support other research that indicate physicalexercise and good diet as moderators of stress,health and well-being (Whatmore, Cartwright, &Cooper, 1999). The relationship between physicalexercise and aspects of EQ further suggests that,for these managers, exercising can provide a senseof achievement and a positive outlook.

This study forms the first stage in a larger researchprogramme designed to investigate the link betweenemotional intelligence, health and performance and

Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Stress and Health 18: 63–68 (2002) 67

M. Slaski and S. Cartwright

the efficacy of emotional intelligence training as ameans of stress reduction. Following the results ofthe study, a programme of emotional intelligencetraining has been developed and introduced inthe host organization. The results of which arecurrently being evaluated (Slaski & Cartwright, inpreparation).

References

Barling, J., Slater, F., & Kelloway, K. (2000). Transforma-tional leadership and EQ. Leadership and OrganisationalDevelopment Journal, 21, 145–150.

Bar-On, R. (1997). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory:A measure of emotional intelligence, Technical Manual.Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

Bowling, A. (1997). Measuring health: a review of qualityof life measurement scales. Buckingham: Open UniversityPress.

Cox, T. (1978). Stress. London: MacMillan.Cummings T.G., & Cooper, C.L. (1979). A cybernetic theory

of occupational stress. Human Relations, 32, 395–418.Cummings T.G., & Cooper, C.L. (1998). A cybernetic theory

of organisational stress. In C.L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories ofOrganisational Stress. Oxford University Press.

Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R.D. (1998). Emotionalintelligence: in search of an elusive construct. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 75, 989–1015.

Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. (1999). Emotional IntelligenceQuestionnaire: user guide. Berks: ASE.

Endler, N.W., & Parker, J.D.A. (1994). Assessment ofmultidimensional coping: Task, emotion and avoidancestrategies. Psychological Assessment, 6, 50–60.

Friedman, M., & Rosenman, R.H. (1974). Type A behaviourand your heart. New York: Knopf.

Goldberg, D.P., & Hillier, V.F. (1979). A scaled version of theGeneral Health Questionnaire. Psychological Medicine, 9,139–145.

Goldberg, D.P., & Williams, P. (1988). A user’s guide to theGeneral Health Questionnaire. Windsor: NFER-Nelson.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. London:Bloomsbury.

Goleman, D. (1998). What makes a leader? Harvard BusinessReview, November–December, 93–102.

Hart, P.M., Griffin, M.A., Wearing. A.J., & Cooper, C.L.(1996). The QPASS manual. Australia: PsychologyDepartment, University of Queensland.

Hart, P.M., Wearing, A.J., & Headey, B. (1993). Assessingpolice work experiences: Development of the Police DailyHassles and Uplifts scales. Journal of Criminal Justice, 21,553–572.

Hart, P.M., Wearing, A.J., & Headey, B. (1995). Policestress and well-being: Integrating personality, coping anddaily work experiences. Journal of Occupational andOrganisational Psychology, 68, 133–156.

Kobasa, S.C. (1982). The hardy personality: toward a socialpsychology of stress and health. In G.S. Sanders & J. Suls(Eds), The social psychology of health and illness. Hillsdale,NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kobasa, S.C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality andhealth: an inquiry into hardiness. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 37, 1–11.

Lazarus, R.S. (1976). Patterns of adjustment. New York:McGraw-Hill.

McGrath, J.E. (1976). Stress and behaviour in organisations.In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial andorganisational psychology (pp. 1352–1395). Chicago: RandMcNally.

Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2000).Models of emotional intelligence. In R.J. Sternberg(Ed.), Handbook of intelligence. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Palmer, B., Walls, M., Burgess, Z., & Stough C. (2000).Emotional intelligence and effective leadership. Leadershipand Organization Development Journal, 22, 5–11.

Perkins, D. (1994). Outsmarting IQ: the emerging science oflearnable intelligence. New York: The Free Press.

Rector, N.A., & Roger, D. (1997). The stress buffering effectsof self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 23,799–808.

Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalised expectancies for internalversus external control of reinforcement. PsychologicalMonographs, 80(1), (whole no. 609), 1–28.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J.D. (1990). Emotional intelligence.Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, 185–211.

Slaski, M., & Cartwright, S. (In preparation). What isemotional intelligence? Can it be developed in managers?If so, what are the effects on stress, health, wellbeing andperformance.

Stein, S.J., & Book, H.E. (2000). The EQ edge:emotional intelligence and your success. Toronto, Canada:Stoddart.

Whatmore, L., Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C.L. (1999). UnitedKingdom: Evaluation of a stress management programmein the public sector. In M. Kompier, & C.L. Cooper(Eds), Preventing stress, improving productivity. London:Routledge.

Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Stress and Health 18: 63–68 (2002)68