The Big Three Determinants of Performance - Article Example

Student’s Name: Grade Course: Tutor’s Name: June 08, 2011. Bibliography entry: Mathew, Renjini and Zubin Mulla R. “The Big Three Determinants of Performance: General Mental Ability, Personality, and Emotional Intelligence.” Great Lakes Herald 5.1 (2011): 1-12. The purpose of this study was to determine whether emotional intelligence, personality and general mental ability contribute to the overall performance portrayed by managers in an organizational setting. Right from the introduction, the article promises to give the reader some insight on how the three identified aspects of employee behavior interact and shape organizational behavior. Although the article does not refer to the UAE, one gets the impression that the three aspects identified are universal and hence cannot change in different geographical or cultural orientations. The article’s introduction is succinct, easily understandable and gives the reader a sense of what the authors seek to achieve in the article in very clear words. Additionally, the article succeeds in relating GMA, EI and personality traits as key predictors of occupational success. The authors note that EI has attracted both supporters and critics as a predictor of success in an organisation setting, and as such, the article aims at exploring the exact impact that EI has (i.e. above GMA and personality traits) in predicting success for people in managerial positions. Among the notable weaknesses in the abstract, the authors replace personality traits, with conscientiousness, as if to imply that the two terms are interchangeable. The authors repeat the same literature review section, without clarifying that conscientiousness is just one among many personality traits that a manager may have. The introduction also has notable weaknesses, in that the authors do not attempt to define the concepts they wish to investigate. For example, rather than start by describing what EI and GMA concepts are, the authors delve into the subject without explaining the key concepts they are dealing with. As (Lertzman 86) observes, most scientific writers target a specific audience who may know the terminology used in an article; however, targeting a specific audience does not mean that writers do not have an obligation to explain professional terms that nonprofessionals cannot fully comprehend. In the article, Mathew and Mulla have used a combination of classic and recent literature to address the subject of how EI affects managerial performance comprehensively. Specifically, the authors have divided the literature review into four sections, with each part drawing from a different set of literature. For example, relating EI to managerial performance, the authors have cited literature that supports and discredits the emotional intelligence concept. In the second section, the authors review a different set of literature while relating the general mental ability with managerial performance. The authors use the same approach in the third and fourth sections, where they relate personality traits and “the Impact of EI over and above GMA and conscientiousness...” respectively (Mathew and Mulla 4). After reviewing literature in the four sections, the authors then develop four hypotheses, which they seek to confirm or reject by conducting their own research. Judging the literature review section in the article based on pointers provided by Rodgers, one gets the impression that the review is comprehensive, but not current especially considering that the authors cited some sources that date back to the 1960s. Notably however, the authors mainly reviewed primary sources, and managed to attain balance by incorporating sources that support and differ from their position. The sheer number of sources that the authors used in the literature review section is evidence that the study, and the hypotheses developed from the same, were based on a sufficient review of existing literature. Strengths The article under critique is based on a research carried out on 100 MBA students who had managerial experience from previous jobs. The respondents were attained from a non-random sample in India, which was made up of 76 male respondents and 24 females. The median work experiences among the respondents was 44 months, while the median income was a median of 450, 000 Indian Rupees. The respondents were drawn from four industry sectors: information technology, manufacturing, shipping, and others (i.e. entrepreneurial venture, education, and media). The article draws one of its major strengths from the diverse sample, since it appears as well balanced and hence devoid of biases that could possibly occur from targeting managers from the same income group, industrial sector, or experience level. The article derives its second strength from the combination of measures it employs to gauge managerial success. First, the authors report that that they used “45-item scale developed by Gupta” to measure respondent’s “self-reported managerial performance” (Mathew and Mulla 5). Secondly, they related the number of years respondent managers had worked for their employer organization with the managers’ remuneration. This approach was based on the assumption that the more experienced managers were more likely to possess better skills and hence was more likely to receive better compensation than the less experienced counterparts were. The researchers further used the Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) attained by respondents in their MBA programs as the third measure of managerial performance. Other measures used in the research include the Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS) to gauge the respondents’ emotional intelligence; the international Personality Item Pool (IPIP) to gauge conscientiousness; and the Intelligence Quotient (IQ) scale to gauge GMA. The combination of measures used during the research played a key role in the provision of well-tested and believable results of the survey. For example, the authors found out that as independent variables, emotional intelligence, conscientiousness and general mental ability portrayed moderate correlation. This was in line with another study conducted by Wong, Law and Song (244), which found out that EI is a facet of intelligence and is therefore bound to correlate with other forms of intellect such as IQ or cognitive aptitude. It is worth noting that the researchers have explicitly explained the data gathering techniques used in the study. Further, the authors have gone into detail explaining the different measures used in the research and their relevance to the same. Throughout the essay, the authors do not mention any other variables that may interact with emotional intelligence, GMA, and personality traits to affect managerial performance. As Berman and Wang (410) observe other factors such as the technical capabilities available in a firm, and stakeholder support given to a manager play a significant role in the level of managerial performance witnessed in an organisation. To their credit however, the authors conclude by stating that there is a possibility that subjective managerial performance assessment did not translate to observable, objective managerial performance results. This then means that the authors recognize, albeit indirectly, that other aspects apart from the inherent characteristics of an individual affect his or her performance as a manager Weaknesses Among the most obvious weaknesses of the article is the limited sample. Although the sample included respondents from diverse income groups, experience, and industries, 100 people were not a sufficient sample to provide conclusive evidence on the subject. The lack of gender balance in the sample is also another notable weakness, especially considering that the debate concerning gender roles in managerial success or otherwise has been discussed extensively in literature by authors such as Ashcraft and Pacanowsky (217-239) and Berryman-Fink (259-283). Notably, the authors of the article have done well in identifying the major limitation of the research, which they name as the self-reporting measure used in the course of the study. Rightfully so, the authors observe that researchers have no means of verifying the self-reported perceptions, attitudes, feelings, behaviors and personality traits. Although the authors have suggested that future studies should try different approaches of measuring “EI and managerial effectiveness”, the fact that the same authors went ahead and used the self-reporting measure in spite of its apparent inadequacies is an obvious weakness in the article. Notably, the authors do not indicate any efforts that they undertook in order to reduce threats posed to the validity of the research through using the self-reported measure. The use of the “ratio of salary to number of years worked” as an objective measure also appears rash especially considering that the median age of the respondents was 25 years, and the median work experience 44 months. As one would expect, not all organizations remunerate their managers based on their years of service. Based on contemporary trends, it is highly unlikely that a manager aged 25 years would have worked in the same managerial position for long. Even more unlikely is the probability that his or her salary would based on the cumulative years of service to a company. The authors/researchers could have considered an older (probably 35-40-year-old managers) sample for the study. By using MBA students that had previous managerial experience, one wonders why the research did not target practicing managers. Notably, the authors have not given any reason/s why they preferred to use the people who had previous managerial experiences rather than practicing managers. One assumption that can explain such an approach to research would be that people who have managerial experience dating some years back are able to assess their performances in such positions better than those currently serving in similar positions are. The median age of the respondents featured in the study however disqualifies this assumption. However, since the authors have not offered any explanation to that effect, readers cannot fully comprehend the reasons behind their sampling. Overall, whether or not the article contributes to the subject of organizational behavior and performance is a question that can be answered either way. People who look down on the self-assessment measure used in the research can argue that its subjective nature makes it a distorted, partial and an inaccurate survey measurement tool, whose results are usually laden with impression management tactics from the respondents. People who subscribe to this school of thought can hence argue that the article did not contribute much to knowledge on organizational behavior. On the other hand (and I subscribe to this school of thought) are people who believe that the self-assessment measure is an important tool of creating self-awareness through reflection about the self. In addition to discovering one’s personality traits, and emotional intelligence, the self- reporting measure helps one discover his needs, values, and habits. Such discoveries could then lead to self-awareness, which could in turn lead to managers identifying gaps in their skills, or situations where they are most effective. As the authors indicate, the research findings further contributed to knowledge by presenting emotional intelligence as a predictor of “happiness, satisfaction, or subjective well-being” (Mathew and Mulla 9). To this end therefore, it is evident that the article contributed to knowledge on organizational behavior especially since recruiters can learn to hire employees with high EI since such are portrayed as being more flexible, realistic and able to evaluate their circumstances and hence adapt to the same easily. Works Cited Ashcraft, Karen Lee, and Michael Pacanowsky. “A woman’s worst enemy: Reflections on a narrative of organizational life and female identity.” Journal of Applied Communication Research 24 (1996): 217-239. Berman, Evan, and Xiaohu Wang. “Performance Measurement in the U.S. Counties: Capacity for Reform.” Public Administration Review 60.5 (2000): 409-420. Berryman-Fink, Cynthia. “Gender Issues: Management Style, Mobility, and Harassment.” Organizational Communication: Theory and Behavior. Ed. Peggy Yuhas Byers. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1997. 259-283. Print. Lertzman, Ken. “Notes on Writing Papers and Theses.” Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 76.2 (Jun. 1995): 86-90. Mathew, Renjini, and Zubin Mulla R. “The Big Three Determinants of Performance: General Mental Ability, Personality, and Emotional Intelligence.” Great Lakes Herald 5.1 (2011): 1-12. Rodgers, Beth L. “Guidelines for Critique of Research Reports.” Dec. 2010. 07 Jun. 2011. Read More