Planning the EQ-i 2.0 Assessment Process
The EQ-i® 2.0 was developed so that it can be used for many different purposes (e.g., leadership development, life coaching, employee selection) across a variety of settings, industries and cultures. While there is no doubt that this level of flexibility in an assessment tool is of a huge benefit to practitioners and researchers alike, it comes with the caveat that the right plan needs to be in place before the EQ-i 2.0 is administered to ensure that it is set up for success.
The guidelines presented on this page bring together psychological testing standards jointly developed by the American Psychological Association, the American Educational Association and the National Council on Measurement in Education (APA, 1999) with best practices in organizational development, performance coaching, leadership development and training design. The intention is to provide an ethical yet impactful process for using the EQ-i 2.0 in a way that facilitates behavior change.
It is recommended that the EQ-i 2.0 be used as part of a larger evaluation process, alongside other assessment methods and needs analysis techniques (e.g., interviews, focus groups, and behavioral observations) when available. Moreover, EQ-i 2.0 results should be viewed as important points of data that should be further explored and examined through additional methods with the aim of gaining a broad and balanced picture of the person being assessed.
Decisions or judgments should never be made on the basis of an EQ-i 2.0 score alone. A skilled interpreter may form hypotheses, research questions or coaching ideas based on the client’s scores, but these should always be further investigated through the debrief process and/or against other assessment methods.
Since the EQ-i 2.0 is a self-report measure, it is not recommended for people who are unwilling or unable to respond honestly to the test items. As will be described in more detail in the following sections, you should look for cultures, conditions or constraints in organizations that may make it difficult for participants to respond openly and honestly to the EQ-i 2.0.
The EQ-i 2.0 should always be administered with a plan and a purpose. At a very rudimentary level, the EQ-i 2.0 requires that an individual be open about himself by divulging personal information in response to the items. In most cases, this personal information is then interpreted by someone who is unknown to the test taker. As such, administering the EQ-i 2.0 should never be a frivolous exercise; each assessment given should have a clear objective and show respect for the test taker’s time and willingness to share personal details. Further information on purposeful planning around the EQ-i 2.0 is outlined below.
The flowchart presented in Figure 4.1, shows six recommended steps to engage a client in the EQ-i 2.0 from the initial conversation through to measuring the impact of an emotional intelligence (EI) initiative. Whether you are working with an individual client, a client organization, the EQ-i 2.0 or the EQ 360® 2.0, these six broad steps apply in almost all new relationships you forge that are likely to involve development around emotional intelligence.
Just by glancing over the steps, you will see that using the EQ-i 2.0 is not just about ensuring test takers complete the assessment; there are multiple steps involved before and after the administration to ensure both you and your EI initiative are set up for success. Like any development initiative, over 50 years of research indicates that development efforts must be accompanied by significant and visible support from key stakeholders in order to see the desired performance translated to the job (Broad, 2005). If the intent of using the EQ-i 2.0 is anything more than personal insight, engaging your client before, during and after administration will be crucial in driving individual and organizational change.
The following sections outline the details of each step in the EQ-i 2.0 Engagement Process along with some best practices when working with both individuals and organizations.
Figure 4.1. Client Engagement Process: Six Steps to Gaining Buy-In
When embarking on a relationship that is likely to involve administering the EQ-i 2.0, it is crucial to define your client’s (or client organization’s) underlying needs. Underlying needs include any challenges that the client is currently experiencing that may be alleviated by introducing a measure of EI. For instance, you may find yourself dealing with a recently out of work manager who is contemplating a career change or a corporation who is looking to strengthen their leadership team’s ability to manage change.
A guiding principle espoused by Covey (2004) is that one begin with the end in mind while investigating the underlying needs of your client. Ask yourself and your client: What is the end goal for the relationship/ contract we are about to enter? What underlying needs does the client expect the EQ-i 2.0 will address? Top consultants answer these questions by researching within an organization, asking the right questions and testing hypotheses even when they believe they themselves are sure of the answer. Identifying upfront the expectations of engaging in an EI initiative provides you with a checkpoint against which you can constantly monitor your client’s progress. It also allows you to evaluate the success of the EQ-i 2.0 post-assessment, to ensure all expectations were met.
Identifying underlying needs can take many forms. With a single individual, you may simply meet with them before taking the EQ-i 2.0 to talk about what they are interested in finding out from completing the assessment. Discovering an entire team’s, department’s, or corporation’s underlying needs is usually a much bigger undertaking. Some techniques commonly used to investigate underlying group needs are:
- interviews
- focus groups/world cafes
- multiple meetings with various stakeholders
- observations (observing meetings, presentations, work performance/tasks)
- gathering hard data (e.g., financial performance, customer satisfaction metrics, turnover rates)
Whether your client is one individual or an entire organization, Table 4.1 identifies some questions you might ask yourself while you are uncovering your client’s needs.
Table 4.1. Questions for Consultant Reflection
| Question | Gather these details |
|---|---|
| 1. Who am I to this client? |
|
| 2. Why am I here and what am I doing? |
|
| 3. Who do I work for? |
|
| 4. What do I want/expect from the client? |
|
| 5. How will I protect confidentiality? |
|
| 6. Who will have access to data? |
|
| 7. What’s in it for the client? |
|
| 8. How much does the client know about EI? |
|
| 9. Can I be trusted as an EI expert? |
|
Note. Adapted from Organizational Development and Change, by Cummings and Worley, 2005, 8th Ed.
Having the answers to these questions informs your contracting phase and also allows you to create the best possible value proposition for how the EQ-i 2.0 can meet some of your client’s underlying needs.
Once underlying needs have been identified, the value for the client is in seeing how EI can be part of the solution for resolving their needs. In many cases, either a personal or organizational need can be distilled to one of the emotional and social skills measured by the EQ-i 2.0. That’s why the fifteen subscales are often referred to as building blocks. By showing how a client’s need rests on these EI building blocks, you can make clear, theoretical connections between the EQ-i 2.0 and the needs that a client wishes to resolve the most. Some examples are shown in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2. Communicating the Value of EI
| Common Organizational Department/Team Needs | How the EQ-i 2.0 is Connected |
|---|---|
| Too many costly and unsuccessful hires | When EI is related to high performance the EQ-i 2.0 can be integrated into the selection process to make better hires |
| Leaders are unequipped to handle change | At the root of managing change and inspiring others through tough times, leaders must first manage their own emotions associated with change (Emotional Self-Awareness, Emotional Expression) |
| New products are being developed | Although analysis and decision making around new products will typically involve data, it will also require decision makers to let go of their personal attachment, solve problems using both hard and emotional data and resist rash decisions (Reality Testing, Problem Solving and Impulse Control) |
| Leaders shy away from healthy conflict | Conflict Management skills can be addressed by zeroing in on elements such as Impulse Control, Assertiveness and Self-Regard so that leaders manage conflict in a way that is healthy and constructive |
| I’m looking to make a career transition | Because all jobs require some degree of emotional and social functioning, knowing how EI strengths align to future career possibilities will help inform your client’s career transition plan and ensure they work on EI development goals that better position them for the career they want. |
| I want to build stronger relationships | In both personal and professional spaces individuals need to understand how well they maintain positive relationships, show care and concern for others and demonstrate oneself as a contributing member of one’s social group (Interpersonal Relationships, Empathy and Social Responsibility). |
| I don’t know my strengths or weaknesses | Because the EQ-i 2.0 measures an array of social and emotional skills that underpin a whole host of other competencies, the assessment is a good, non-threatening place to start this conversation and subsequent coaching |
| I want to succeed at university | Much research has shown that students who have well developed EI perform better in higher education. Specific areas that may derail your client’s university career can be examined and addressed before they become issues |
A best practice from coaches and consultants who work with the EQ-i 2.0 in organizations is to create a value proposition which communicates the value in adopting the EQ-i 2.0. It is a conversation or a document that summarizes all the information you uncovered about a client’s needs and makes clear links to how the EQ-i 2.0 may be a viable solution in addressing those needs. Keep in mind a Value Proposition can only be effective if you have correctly identified the client’s needs in the first place. If it is possible to do so, validate the needs you have identified against sources within the organization before you take the step of recommending solutions.
Your Value Proposition should be created using the best practices illustrated in Figure 4.2.
Figure 4.2. Best Practices in Creating Your Value Proposition
Gaining buy-in for EI begins with the very first interaction with a client and is an ongoing process until the contract is complete. However, as a formal step, buy-in is required on your value proposition before you move onto contracting, hence its current position in the EQ-i 2.0 Engagement Process. However, even the best value proposition will likely stir up questions and/or concerns in your audience unless you do some additional work to secure buy-in.
The EQ-i 2.0 is like any other psychological assessment and may at first be met with resistance or skepticism from future participants. To help gain buy-in and support for the assessment and any accompanying activities, proactively counter any concerns or barriers from the start, before you begin contracting or administering the EQ-i 2.0. Some practices for gaining buy-in for the EQ-i 2.0 are outlined here.
Gaining Individual Buy-In
Individual clients may have reservations or concerns about psychological testing in general that may color perceptions of the EQ-i 2.0. It is a psychological test by its very nature but there are some things that distinguish the EQ-i 2.0 from traditional tests and testing practices. You may want to use the following points to ease your client’s concerns and help gain buy-in for taking the EQ-i 2.0:
1. The EQ-i 2.0 is not a diagnostic test.
- The EQ-i 2.0 does not diagnose the test taker. It can be used as part of a larger diagnostic process in a clinical setting, but in most cases it is used to provide personal insight into strengths and areas for development. Your client will not be labeled nor will any decision be made on the basis of EQ-i 2.0 results alone.
2. There are no right or wrong answers.
- The items on the EQ-i 2.0 use a Likert scale where you indicate how frequently you behave a certain way. As such, there are no right and wrong answers nor a pass or fail result.
3. Self-reports have limitations.
- A psychological self-report test has its limitations and it is responsible behavior for the assessor to admit them openly. Some examples of limitations are that test takers can lie or skew their responses, or that a test taker may not be self-aware enough to answer accurately about their own behavior. However, the basic premise stands that the quality of the results always reflects the quality of responses. In most cases, if your client answers the EQ-i 2.0 openly and honestly, the results represent an accurate reflection of the individual.
4. You, the test taker, own the results.
- The test taker owns the results of the test-taker’s EQ-i 2.0. They have the right to keep their report and decide who they will share their results, if anyone. Reassure your client of your protection procedures for his/her confidentiality. Detail where results and reports are saved and ensure your client understands how he/she can access his/her results in the future.
5. There are very few age, gender or ethnic differences in EQ-i 2.0 scores.
- The EQ-i 2.0 does not discriminate against age, gender or ethnic groups. There are small group differences at the subscale level, but on a whole most people will encounter the same experience when taking the assessment. You may want to describe the make-up of the norm group against which your client’s score will be compared to ease concerns about being unrepresented in the norm group. See Standardization, Reliability, and Validity for more information.
6. Emotional Intelligence is comprised of “dynamic” skills
- The EQ-i 2.0 measures emotional and social functioning which are made up of dynamic skills that can be brought into play in any job, relationship or interaction. Being dynamic means these skills can be improved through training and coaching and are not fixed like personality traits or IQ. Your client should not feel boxed in or defined by their results on the EQ-i 2.0; unlike personality, the client can grow and develop in any EI skill area she chooses.
Gaining Organizational/Stakeholder Buy-In
Any of the concerns raised above at the individual level may also apply when you are engaging a group, department or entire organization in an EI initiative. You may find it helpful to include some common misperceptions or Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) in your presentations on EI to preclude any barriers to buy-in. If you are working with EI in organizations, universities or other large group settings, you may find you need to do more than just overcome personal fears and hesitations around testing; you may also need to address questions like:
- How much will this cost us?
- What is our return on investment (ROI) for using the EQ-i 2.0?
- How much time or how many resources will this take?
- Will it have a lasting impact?
- How will it impact performance,engagement,satisfaction,leadership, or the bottom line?
- How will EI be integrated into other parts of the business?
Evidence-Based Practice
To help support your EI initiative, it can be effective to present information that demonstrates the impact to the bottom line for your potential client. This section outlines several cases that you may find relevant to your objective and wish to leverage to gain support and buy in for your EI initiative. For more information on these cases refer to the resource center at http://ei.mhs.com.
LEADERSHIP
Sample of 220 North American Leaders – MHS (2011)
Leaders score consistently higher on the EQ-i 2.0 than the general population. Additionally, there are links between certain EQ-i 2.0 subscales such as Assertiveness, Independence, Self-Actualization, Empathy and Optimism, and transformational leadership qualities. By linking EI to any leadership model or framework one can distill down a majority of leadership competencies (whether transformational or transactional) into the specific emotional or social skills that need to be developed in order to see gains at the broader competency level.
THE AMEX CHALLENGE
American Express – Durek (2005)
MHS conducted a study for American Express in Fort Lauderdale to determine the EI skill set that best predicted success for customer-focused Sales Associates. Two metrics that defined success in this role were customer satisfaction (feedback regarding customer service based on 13 behaviors) and sales goal attainment (profitability of associates’ work). MHS quickly realized that while some associates had high customer service skills and some had high sales group skills, few were strong in both performance criteria.
Associates who scored high in both performance categories scored significantly higher on the EQ-i as compared to those who only scored well in one performance area, or were low in both. In other words, high emotional intelligence was a strong predictor of associates with both required skill sets. Those who excelled in sales as well as meeting customer needs clearly outperformed those who did not. In fact, emotional and social skills make up one-half of the skill set that existing successful telephone service centre reps need to be successful in their new role.
SALES PERFORMANCE
Pharmaceutical Sales Company – MHS (2010)
A North American Pharmaceutical Sales company integrated the EQ-i 2.0 into their sales representative’s performance appraisals and found that the top third of their sales representatives (as rated by managers) had significantly higher scores on scales such as Impulse Control, Decision Making and Stress Management than the sales reps in the bottom third performance group.
SELECTION AND RETENTION CASE
U.S. Air Force – Handley (1998)
U.S. Air Force recruiters were suffering from high rates of first-year turnover. In their efforts to increase recruiter retention, the USAF used the EQ-i assessment to study the differences between successful and unsuccessful recruiters. Notable score differences between the two groups were evident in areas such as: assertiveness, self-actualization, stress tolerance, flexibility, problem solving, and happiness.
Using their findings from the EQ-i, the USAF developed a pre-employment screening system which led to a 92% increase in recruiter retention with a savings of $3 million annually.
The phrase “get it in writing” reminds us of the value of a written agreement because an agreement outlines the working parameters and expected conditions in a given relationship. Engaging a client in the EQ-i 2.0 process requires much of the same up-front contracting and in fact, when done properly can actually help you avoid many of the confidentiality issues (e.g., who owns the data?) or common misuses of the EQ-i 2.0 that tend to arise later in the administration process.
By incorporating , the following elements in your contract you can avoid unmet expectations around the purpose of your partnership with a client (Block, 2000). These elements have been adapted to suit a typical organizational level EQ-i 2.0 consulting initiative, although the elements are still applicable to contracts/binding conversations with a single client.
- Boundary Analysis
- Project Objectives
- The Kind of Information You Seek
- Your Role
- The Product You Will Deliver
- Support and Involvement Required
- Time Schedule
- Confidentiality
Each of the eight contracting elements have been outlined further in the following table. Notice how much of the information you need to complete each element has already been gathered through the previous steps in the EQ-i 2.0 Engagement Process.
Table 4.3. Contracting Elements
| Contract Element Description | Refer to Information Collected in the Client Engagement Process | Example | |
|---|---|---|---|
1. Boundaries of Analysis |
|||
|
STEP 1. Investigate Underlying Needs |
“The EQ-i 2.0 will be administered to all High potential managers enrolled in Leadership 101. A full day of training content will be devoted to learning EI competencies and managers will receive a one hour debrief of their results with an external coach. The EQ-i 2.0 acts as an integral and ongoing assessment that HR wished to offer High Potentials for their personal growth and development.” | |
2. Objectives of Project |
|||
|
STEP 2. Communicating Value of the EQ-i 2.0 |
“The main objective is to provide all high potentials with: A common language§ Insight into their emotional and social functioning§ Data to drive their personal goal setting throughout their training program.” A second objective is to pilot the EQ-i 2.0 within the organization. Feedback and post-assessment follow-up will be collected to determine whether the EQ-i 2.0 can be used with other teams in the company.” | |
3. The Kind of Information You Seek |
|||
|
STEP 1. Investigate Underlying Needs |
“To complete the project I need access to all 12 high potentials, the training manager and the HR manager. I will also need to work with the existing training materials and content in order to build one day of EI content. I will also need access to all participants and their managers for 1 hour each following the program to evaluate success.” |
|
4. Your Role |
|||
|
STEP 1. Investigate Underlying Needs |
“My role is to manage the project from my consulting practice perspective. I will oversee the project and work closely with the internal project champion (HR Manager X). The actual delivery of the EI training program and coaching hours will be completed by my training facilitator Mr. Smith. | |
5. The Product You Will Deliver |
|||
|
STEP 2. Communicating Value of the EQ-i 2.0 |
“The products include:
|
|
6. Support and Involvement Required |
|||
|
STEP 1. STEP 2. STEP 3. |
“I will need all 12 high potentials to complete the EQ-i 2.0, which takes about 30 minutes. Managers will need to allow for this. I need internal support to allow the high potentials to not only attend the EI training but to practice the concepts back on the job… The time commitment expected of participants is X over a 3 month period.” | |
7. Time Schedule |
|||
|
STEP 1. Communicating Value of the EQ-i 2.0 and STEP 2. Gaining Buy-In |
“The proposed schedule:
|
|
8. Confidentiality |
|||
|
STEP 1. Investigate Underlying Needsand STEP 2. Communicating Value of the EQ-i 2.0 and STEP 3. Gaining Buy-In |
“Understanding that EQ-i 2.0 results and reports are owned by the participants alone, there will be no expectations for the participants to share their results. Each participant will receive their report and data will be housed in the secure database of the test provider (MHS). There needs to be strong internal championing of this process, but it is not mandatory for participants to complete the EQ-i 2.0.” | |
Evaluating your EI initiative is crucial to sustaining individual, team and organizational commitment to long term EI growth. Like any development program, you need to follow-up with participants and key stakeholders to assess whether the EQ-i 2.0 was successful in achieving its intended goals. As mentioned earlier in Steps 1 through 4, having clearly defined the outcomes expected from using the EQ-i 2.0 will now allow you to measure the impact of your initiative on either individual or group level performance.
Individual Follow-up and Evaluation
In an ongoing coaching relationship, re-administering the EQ-i 2.0 after development efforts have been made is a standard method of measuring specific, quantifiable growth in your client’s EI skills. For example, if you are working with your client on developing her empathy, retesting after 3 months of practicing and honing various empathy skills should reflect an increase in your client’s empathy results on the second administration.
Follow-up can also take a more informal approach by placing checkpoints along your client’s development path. Particularly if you are using an action plan and/or development commitment (like those presented in the Workplace Report), you can assign specific dates to check in on your client’s progress in achieving his or her personal goals. If goals were initially created to be measurable and time-bound, then determining whether your coaching has been instrumental in reaching these goals should be relatively simple at this point. The following questions will help to inform your evaluation:
- How well do you feel you are tracking against your EI development goals?
- Which goals do you believe you have achieved? How do you know?
- What indicators (e.g., job performance, decreased stress) suggest that your goal has been reached? Have you experienced any unexpected benefits?
- Can you seek feedback from your manager, colleagues, friends or family to verify your improvements in a particular skill?
- Now that you have reached this goal, what will be your plan for maintaining this higher level of performance?
- How do you think this coaching relationship is going? What would you like us to keep doing, stop doing or start doing in order for it to be more effective?
Large Scale Follow-up
For initiatives where the EQ-i 2.0 has expected organization, department or team level outcomes, ongoing follow-up is particularly important to determine whether adjustments to the initiative need to be made and whether in the end, the initiative delivered the expected returns.
Circle back to the Project Objectives you outlined in the Contracting Phase to determine which outcomes need evaluation. If the EQ-i 2.0 was administered as part of a larger leadership training program and the objective is to produce stronger leaders, how will you evaluate whether “stronger leaders” are the end result? Or was your EI intervention expected to produce economic returns (e.g., reducing attrition rates and hiring expenses for a high risk position)? In either case, these outcomes are unlikely to be measured by re-administering the EQ-i 2.0. Instead, you will need to use metrics available within the organization to measure whether improvements have been made. For example, consider whether you can make theoretical links between the EQ-i 2.0 subscales and the competencies that define stronger leaders in your client organization. You would expect to see improvement in performance review data on those competencies that are linked to EI development (e.g., strengthening Assertiveness, Empathy and Impulse Control should in turn strengthen leaders’ conflict resolution skills).
If a post measure of the EQ-i 2.0 is desired, follow the same guidelines for re-testing individuals and aggregate results to measure EI growth at a group level.