The case for the ability‐based model of emotional intelligence in organizational behavior

In this second counterpoint article, we refute the claims of Landy, Locke, and Conte, and make the more specific case for our perspective, which is that ability‐based models of emotional intelligence have value to add in the domain of organizational psychology. In this article, we address remaining issues, such as general concerns about the tenor and tone of the debates on this topic, a tendency for detractors to collapse across emotional intelligence models when reviewing the evidence and making judgments, and subsequent penchant to thereby discount all models, including the ability‐based one, as lacking validity. We specifically refute the following three claims from our critics with the most recent empirically based evidence: (1) emotional intelligence is dominated by opportunistic ‘academics‐turned‐consultants’ who have amassed much fame and fortune based on a concept that is shabby science at best; (2) the measurement of emotional intelligence is grounded in unstable, psychometrically flawed instruments, which have not demonstrated appropriate discriminant and predictive validity to warrant/justify their use; and (3) there is weak empirical evidence that emotional intelligence is related to anything of importance in organizations. We thus end with an overview of the empirical evidence supporting the role of emotional intelligence in organizational and social behavior. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The dyadic level of conceptualization and analysis: A missing link in multilevel OB research?

Despite burgeoning multilevel research in organizational behavior over the past two decades, our understanding of dyadic relationships at work remains underdeveloped. Focusing on leader–member exchange, we discuss conceptual and methodological challenges that have hampered research at this level and illustrate how and why such analysis might provide new insights. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Exploring the perceived influence of safety management practices on project performance in the construction industry

Although safety management is known to be vital to construction projects, very few studies have solicited views from construction practitioners about their perceptions of which safety management practices (SMPs) are important to construction projects and related to project performance. An empirical study was undertaken in Hong Kong in order to shed more light on this topic. In the study, the importance levels of 15 popular SMPs and five project performance criteria were rated by 232 respondents. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted, and three SMP categories - information, process, and committees - were extracted. Of these three categories, safety management process was perceived by the construction practitioners as being the most important, followed by safety management information and committees. Moreover, the effect of the three SMP categories on a composite project performance variable was tested using hierarchical regression analysis. Results indicate that the “information” and “committees” categories were associated with project performance positively and significantly. One of the major conclusions of the study is that the construction industry has paid relatively less attention to safety management committees, which were empirically analyzed as having a strong perceived impact on project performance. In order to improve project performance, construction companies should promote the criticality of safety management committees.     

Reducing post-disaster conflict: a cross-cultural test of four hypotheses using archaeological data

Four hypotheses concerning the relationship between climate-related disasters and conflict are tested using archaeological data in a controlled cross-cultural comparison. The four hypotheses are (1) Conflict increases following climate-related disasters because local economic conditions deprive polities of tax revenue so that they can no longer suppress conflict; (2) Conflict increases following climate-related disasters because existing social inequalities lead to conflicts over differential access to resources; (3) Conflict increases following climate-related disasters because migration forces population into condensed settlements ripe for conflict; and (4) Conflict increases following climate-related disasters in polities where leaders tightly control access to political authority because leaders may use violence to maintain control over the resources they use to secure support from other elites. Only the fourth hypothesis is supported. It is argued that understanding pre-disaster political strategies is key to understanding post-disaster conflict.