International Journal

on Marine Navigation

and Safety of Sea Transportation

Volume 3

Number 2

June 2009

225

1 INTRODUCTION

There is extensive literature addressing the subject

of “emotional intelligence” (EI) and its importance

to the profile of leaders and models of leadership.

Yet, despite what some claim to be the “sine qua

non” of leadership (Goleman 1998, p. 93), there are

arguably few, if any, valid instruments available to

predict demonstration of EI competencies in the

workplace. This paper focuses on EI and challenges

to measurement as they relates to leadership devel-

opment in maritime management — where EI com-

petencies are generally acknowledged as critical to

effective job performance. The paper proceeds as

follows:

1 definition of EI;

2 review and evaluation of current instruments that

claim to measure EI;

3 rationale for study;

4 survey results of hiring practices in selected com-

panies in the shipping industry; implications to

the imperative for testing and measurement of EI;

5 and, recommendations for further research.

2 DEFINING EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE

The term emotional intelligence, while popular in

many academic and practitioner forums, continues to

generate significant controversy regarding its mean-

ing, its measurement, and its predictability or validi-

ty (Livingston & Day 2005, p. 757). Although defi-

nitional grounding is important to this paper, a

comprehensive review of the literature devoted to

defining EI lies beyond the scope of this study. Suf-

fice to say that we — the authors — frame the un-

derstanding of EI, in part, around the five competen-

cies and personality attributes posited by Daniel

Goleman (1998, p. 95):

− self-awareness: The ability to recognize and un-

derstand one’s moods, emotions, and drives as

well as their effect on others.

Demonstrated: self-confidence; realistic self-

assessment; self-deprecating sense of humor;

− self-regulation: The ability to control or redirect

disruptive impulses and moods; the propensity to

suspend judgment – to think before acting.

Demonstrated: trustworthiness and integrity;

comfort with ambiguity; openness to change;

− motivation: A passion to work for reasons that go

beyond money and status; a propensity to pursue

goals with energy and persistence.

Demonstrated: strong drive to achieve optimism,

even in the face of failure; organizational com-

mitment

− empathy: The ability to understand the emotional

makeup of other people; skill in treating people

according to their emotional reactions.

Demonstrated: expertise in building and retaining

talent; cross-cultural sensitivity; service to clients

and customers

− Proficiency in managing relationships and build-

ing networks; an ability to find common ground

and build rapport

Demonstrated: effectiveness in leading change;

Predicting Emotional Intelligence in Maritime

Management:

Imperative, Yet Elusive

E.S. Potoker & J.-A. Corwin

Maine Maritime Academy, Castine, Maine, USA

ABSTRACT: There is extensive literature addressing the subject of “emotional intelligence” (EI) and its im-

portance to the profile of leaders and models of leadership. Despite what some have argued as the sine qua

non of leadership, there are arguably few, if any, valid instruments available to predict demonstration of EI

competencies. This paper focuses on EI and challenges to measurement as it relates to leadership develop-

ment in maritime management —where EI competencies are deemed critical to effective performance. The

authors review and evaluate current instruments that claim to measure EI, survey hiring practices in selected

companies in the shipping industry, and make recommendations for further research.

226

persuasiveness; expertise in building and leading

teams.

Reuven Bar-On’s definition (1997) is another that

informs this paper as he addresses, “…noncognitive

capabilities, competencies, and skills that influence

one’s ability to succeed in with environmental de-

mands and pressures” (p. 14). Non-cognitive refers

to the “emotional, personal, and social components

of intelligent behavior” (Bar-On 1998, p. vii). These

capabilities appear to be particularly important given

the environmental variables inherent in maritime

management, and so are included as a consideration.

3 MEASURING AND PREDICTING EI

Consensus is also clearly lacking regarding availa-

bility of instruments that accurately predict demon-

stration of EI competencies. Three tests that are cur-

rently used with arguable claims of some success are

The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence

Test (MSCEIT—MHS Multi-Health Systems), the

BarOn EQ-i (Bar-On 1997) and the Emotional

Competence Inventory--e.g., ECI360 (Hay Group

1999-2005). Because each test defines emotional in-

telligence differently—e.g. focusing in part or not on

personality traits, cognitive abilities, and/or other ar-

rays--users might not necessarily have just the one

test to meet their needs. Additionally, making com-

parisons of different test results is not feasible as

comparability is simply not possible: Some tests re-

sults are based on self-reporting models (e.g., the

BarOn EQ-i); others incorporate observer input and

self-reporting (e.g., the ECI360), and so on.

Another concern, as with any instrument, in-

volves that of reliability and validity. Reliability—

does the instrument consistently measure over time

what it purports to measure? Construct validity—is

there evidence that the instrument measures what it

claims to measure? Construct validity claims are

frequently supported through triangulation, where

multiple instruments/observers corroborate findings.

This is problematic, however, in the case of EI in-

struments for reasons discussed earlier. Predictive

validity, or the degree to which the test is accurate in

forecasting on-the-job performance, is particularly

important to this paper. Nevertheless, it is one thing

to hypothetically score high (or low) in a test setting

for EI—particularly if by self-reporting methods

(versus impartial observers). It is quite another when

one factors in the work environment such as weath-

er, fear, terrorism, and a multitude of other variables

such as crew diversity—all of which have the poten-

tial to affect operationalization of predicted perfor-

mance. Crew diversity is a factor of life on ocean

going vessels, many of which bear foreign flags and

count on crews representing many nations, both de-

veloped and developing. Therefore, if we add cross-

cultural and national dimensions to measuring and

predicting EI as defined earlier, the challenges loom

even larger. Alternatively stated, history has proven

that results obtained in an “antiseptic” or closed sys-

tem will not necessarily translate in real world situa-

tions where the environment intervenes regularly.

An Internet search of the importance of EI to de-

cision making reveals over 26,000 cites illustrating

its value across industries. Therefore, if it were

available, predictive validity for EI would not be

uniquely important to maritime management. Yet,

the rationale to meet these needs in this particular

industry appears particularly impelling in a global

post 9/11 environment, which brings us to the sec-

tion that follows.

4 RATIONALE FOR STUDY: A MARITIME

PERSPECTIVE

…the prospect of a relationship between EI, leader-

ship and individual, group and organizational out-

comes is sufficiently compelling to attract the atten-

tion of researchers who will resolve the question and

move leadership theory and understanding of social

influence to its next stage (Brown and Moshavi

2005, p. 870).

In March of 2006, Pamela Turner, Assistant Sec-

retary for Legislative and Governmental Affairs of

the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, directed

a letter to Congress regarding the results of a project

that implemented the Crew Endurance Management

System (CEMS) on towing vessels. Crew endurance

is “the ability to maintain performance within safety

limits while enduring job-related physical, psycho-

logical and environmental challenges” (Crew Endur-

ance Management 2006). Management of the ele-

ments that heighten risk that leads to poor

performance and/or human failures is a goal of

CEMS. The report also included a description of the

resources that would be needed to implement the

CEMS on all U.S. flag-towing vessels (CEMS

Demonstration Project Report, 2006). While the re-

port’s main concern is to reduce marine casualties as

a result of stress and fatigue, the opening statements

of the report point to the imperative not only to find

predictive indicators for EI, but also for the mainte-

nance and development of EI competencies:

Numerous studies indicate that human factors

contribute to the vast majority of marine casualties.

Most of these human factors relate to cognitive

abilities such as situational awareness and situa-

tional assessment (p. 1).

227

This imperative prompted the authors of this pa-

per to determine if and how EI competencies were

currently being assessed in the shipping industry.

Discussion of that survey and its components are

addressed in the section to follow.

5 METHODOLOGY

Through the Careers/Cooperative Education Office

of Maine Maritime Academy in Castine, ME., we

identified 100 individuals in management positions

in a wide range of maritime-related companies. The-

se included, but were not limited to major U.S. ship-

ping, offshore drilling, tug boat service, marina

management, and logistics and related transportation

companies, and pilots’ associations. A survey, in-

cluding Goleman’s definition (1998), was mailed to

all with the request that they rank order the im-

portance of EI competencies. They further were

asked to note whether their company or if they

themselves screened for these competencies through

recruitment, hiring, selection and/or their perfor-

mance appraisal process. Appendix A of complete

paper includes survey details.

6 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Thirty individuals surveyed responded over a four

month period—from July to October of 2006. Eight

of those who did not respond were due to mail re-

turns because of outdated addresses or personnel

changes. We feel that this response rate is a respect-

able one given the nature of the industry—

particularly as many of these individuals frequently

ship out for months at a time—making surveying a

challenge at best. Results are as follows:

Category 1. Please read the definition of EI

competencies. Do you feel that these competencies

are important to effective management in the ship-

ping industry?

100% of the respondents voted affirmatively

(“Yes”). Several added comments that are illustra-

tive of the importance of EI:

Regarding their relative importance specific to

the maritime industry:

− “Especially onboard the vessel when they are to-

gether 24/7.”

− “Within the boundaries of the command structure

aboard a ship.”

− “Due to the close quarters and strenuous work

conditions our crewmembers experience, it is im-

perative we take each competency into account

when crewing and managing our vessels.”

One individual found these competencies to be

uncommon in a shipboard environment and added:

− “These sophisticated ‘touchy/feely’ concepts are

difficult to teach or impart to those who manage

others. . …”

− “As a C/M[Chief Mate], a department head, di-

recting/leading/working w/others has many dif-

ferent requirements that vary from managing an-

other officer, with skills and a permanent job

aboard, unlicensed crew, skilled/semi-skilled with

a permanent job aboard, to unlicensed, semi-

skilled without permanent job status/one trippers,

all require somewhat different approaches.”

Regarding their relative importance in any indus-

try:

− “The EI competencies appear important to lead a

productive & fulfilling life.”

− “It’s difficult to quantify which are most im-

portant, but they are all ingredients for most ef-

fective management.”

− “In any industry, for that matter.” (2 responses)

− “Absolutely. I feel these concepts are key to near-

ly anything one attempts in life.”

Category 2. In order of importance from 1-6,

with 1 being the most important, pls. rank order the

EI competencies that you consider to be important to

effective management in the shipping industry.

It was obvious that respondents had difficulty

rank ordering the six EI components listed in Ap-

pendix A. In fact, three individual comments sug-

gested that it was difficult to pull them apart in im-

portance. One individual rated all 6 as #1; others

rated several equally, making it very challenging to

attempt to represent the data in Figure form. For

those who provided comments, it could be argued

that they viewed the competencies from their specif-

ic job responsibility or personal vantage point--

understandably. As example, a “marine personnel

administrator” favored “e” as #1 in importance,

commenting that vessel masters who promote team-

work appeared more effective in her view than oth-

ers. An “owner” of a U.S. based, but Mid-East affili-

ated maritime company emphasized the importance

of “d” which includes “cross-cultural sensitivity.”

He states, “Any chump can turn a wrench or steer a

course. Only a human relations ‘expert’ can moti-

vate a team.” A “personnel administrator” comment-

ed that all were important when deciding if an indi-

vidual would receive a permanent job aboard a ship

or a promotion to a position of higher responsibility.

228

Figure 1. Category 2-- Rank Ordering of EI Competencies

Despite the challenge of representing the data

from Category 2 in figure form due to double-

counting of several items, it is displayed in the form

of a scatter gram in Figure 1. As explanation, if “b”

was considered #1 in importance and “c” was also

considered #1 in importance by the same individual,

those choices are both represented on the scatter-

gram.

For Category 2 only, four individuals are not rep-

resented due to the fact that they obviously did not

either follow or understand the instructions.

The most interesting findings (to the authors of

this paper) were the highs and lows. Choice “b” or

“self-regulation” clearly rated #1, with “e”, “profi-

ciency in managing relationships” clearly in second

place. “Self-awareness” was top choice in the #2

ranking. A total surprise to the authors was the fact

that “f” was ranked overwhelmingly least in im-

portance. However, that may be explained by a qual-

itative comment that was offered by one respondent

who stated, “ ‘f’ is too general a definition.” Perhaps

there was a need for further explanation that might

have influenced the results. While the data results

are interesting, the authors are unwilling to jump to

generalizations without further research, discussed

later in the paper.

Category 3. To the best of your knowledge, does

your Company or do you screen for these EI compe-

tencies in recruitment, hiring, selection, and/or in

the performance appraisal process?

− Twenty-two or seventy-three percent: “Yes”—

many with qualifiers, to be discussed.

− 2 individuals: did not know, but did offer opin-

ions.

− Six: “No.”

Regarding the “yes” choices, comments clearly

indicated that many of the components of EI are tak-

en into consideration for after-hire decisions: e.g.,

for retention, promotions to management or senior

officer positions such as Captain or Chief Engineer

as part of the performance appraisal process, and in

decisions for granting part-time hires permanent job

status. Several comments illustrated that a formal

process for measuring these competencies is not in

place. Representative examples of such qualifying

comments are as follows:

− “Informally—we do not use a formal tool.”

− “Not done in a formal way yet; is part of evalua-

tion and discussions by people making selec-

tions.”

− “Partly, difficult to evaluate empathy and self-

awareness in an employment candidate. [itali-

cized by authors of paper].

− “More so in the performance appraisal process;

most hiring is done based on professional qualifi-

cations & experience.”

− “Theoretically yes; in practicality, somewhat to

not at all; it often is based on seniority more than

these qualifications or dogged determination.”

− “We try, but it’s difficult in an interview to see

how people really are.”

[One respondent, who checked “no,” indicated

that “but the factors become evident very quickly.”]

Only one individual claimed to screen for these

competencies when interviewing potential candi-

dates. Three others, while attesting to the importance

of EI competencies on Question 1, pointed to the in-

fluence of unions in hiring decisions. First-level de-

cisions for hire of unlicensed positions often related

to basic performance issues such as showing up to

work on time and getting work done in a timely mat-

ter. As indicated earlier, for promotions, these three

also indicated that many of the EI components

would be taken into consideration, although they did

not offer how. One individual makes this illustrative

statement regarding the role and influence of unions

in the hiring process which, in turn, indicates why EI

components are generally considerations “after the

fact” (i.e., the hire) decisions:

− “Personnel are only screened for these competen-

cies with regards to retention. Initial hires are ap-

pointed to employment with a company by a un-

ion, and the unions recognize their role as being

one of protection for all members, versus the cull-

ing or development of individuals.”

7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

While EI competencies were deemed important by

all who were surveyed, and considerations in the

performance appraisal (PA) process for varying rea-

sons such as retention and rehire for permanent posi-

tions and promotions, it was unclear as to how these

competencies were evaluated. In part, this is a limi-

229

tation to the survey itself as that question was not

specifically asked. Nevertheless, with EI only as an

informal consideration for many in the performance

appraisal process, and a minimal to non- considera-

tion in hiring due to union/and or other variables in-

volving full or part-time hiring, one might question

how the road to leadership could be optimized if

predictive indicators for EI in this industry could be

identified. Additionally, how might training and ca-

reer development be optimized if build around an EI

model? Another concern relating to the informality

of the EI screening process involves the possibility

of rater bias and legal repercussions that might ensue

due to perceptions of “informality” (aka, “unfair-

ness”) in promotion and retention decisions.

Research results point to numerous and worth-

while areas for further research, including, but not

limited to:

1 surveying further how EI is presently being as-

sessed in this industry;

2 developing a formal, performance-based Perfor-

mance Appraisal model/instrument that is

grounded in EI competencies for purposes of

training—teaching of specific EI-related skills,

development—career improvement and organiza-

tional effectiveness;

3 continued effort to identify tests for predictive va-

lidity of EI;

4 studies using personnel samples to assess the rela-

tionship between EI components and promotions

within the maritime industry; and,

5 assessment to discern if the importance and the

respective value of each of the EI competencies

(Goleman, 1998) is shared across cultures. This

last area of research is still an un-chartered one

for EI in general, and appears important given the

diversity of crews and foreign-flagged vessel

ownership that is characteristic of this industry.

In short, we are still a long way from identifying

and measuring a quality (EI) that appears crucial to

any industry. Nevertheless, in a post 9/11 world

where teamwork, cross-cultural sensitivity, and self-

regulation and awareness (and more) in uncertain

surroundings are of paramount importance, contin-

ued research in this area appears as imperative as

ever. We invite interested faculty and others to con-

tact us if there is interest in collaborating regarding

further cross-cultural survey research that needs to

be done on this issue.

REFERENCES

Bar-On, R. 1997. Emotional Quotient Inventory: Technical

manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.

Bar-On, R. 1998. EQ-I BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory:

A measure of emotional intelligence (facilitator’s resource

manual). Multi-Health Systems.

Brown, F. W., & Moshavi, D. 2005. Transformational leader-

ship and emotional intelligence: A potential pathway for an

increased understanding of interpersonal influence. Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 26(7), 867-87l.

CEMS Demonstration Project Report to Congress. (2006, Mar.

29). Retrieved June 14, 2006, from

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/cems/index.htm.

Crew Endurance Management. U.S. Coast Guard/Homeland

Security (2006) Retrieved June 14, 2006, from

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/cems/index.htm.

Goleman, D. 1995. Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter

more than IQ. New York: Bantam Books.

----- 1998. What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review,

76(6), 93-103.

Hay Group. 1999-2005. Emotional intelligence services. Re-

trieved June 13, 2006 from,

http://ei.haygroup.com/default.asp.

Livingstone, H., & Day A. 2005. Comparing the construct and

criterion-related validity of ability-based and mixed-model

measures of emotional intelligence. Educational and Psy-

chological Measurement, 65(5), 757-779.

MHS Multi-Health Systems, Inc. (2004). Retrieved June 13,

2006, from http://www.mhs.com.