A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Journal of Applied Psychology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Regulating and Facilitating: The Role of Emotional Intelligence in
Maintaining and Using Positive Affect for Creativity
Michael R. Parke, Myeong-Gu Seo, and Elad N. Sherf
University of Maryland
Although past research has identified the effects of emotional intelligence on numerous employee
outcomes, the relationship between emotional intelligence and creativity has not been well established.
We draw upon affective information processing theory to explain how two facets of emotional intelli-
gence— emotion regulation and emotion facilitation—shape employee creativity. Specifically, we pro-
pose that emotion regulation ability enables employees to maintain higher positive affect (PA) when
faced with unique knowledge processing requirements, while emotion facilitation ability enables em-
ployees to use their PA to enhance their creativity. We find support for our hypotheses using a
multimethod (ability test, experience sampling, survey) and multisource (archival, self-reported,
supervisor-reported) research design of early career managers across a wide range of jobs.
Keywords: emotional intelligence, creativity, positive affect, knowledge processing requirements
Organizations are affectively charged places (Weiss & Cropan-
zano, 1996), and the evidence that affect
1
influences important
employee behaviors and outcomes is pervasive (Brief & Weiss,
2002;Elfenbein, 2007). Given this, employees with the ability to
effectively manage their emotions as well as intentionally harness
and use emotions and emotional information (i.e., emotional in-
telligence;Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999;Salovey & Mayer,
1990) should have more beneficial outcomes than those who lack
such abilities. A growing body of literature on emotional intelli-
gence at work supports this claim (Côté & Miners, 2006;Farh,
Seo, & Tesluk, 2012;Grant, 2013;Joseph & Newman, 2010;
Kluemper, DeGroot, & Choi, 2013;Rubin, Munz, & Bommer,
2005).
However, when the outcome of interest is employee creativity—
the production of new and useful ideas (Amabile, 1996)—there is
a lack of theory and empirical evidence linking emotional intelli-
gence ability to it (e.g., Joseph & Newman, 2010). Although
studies have investigated the potential interpersonal role of emo-
tional intelligence and creativity, such as how leaders impact
follower creativity (Castro, Gomes, & de Sousa, 2012;Zhou &
George, 2003) or how team emotional intelligence helps facilitate
team creativity (Barczak, Lassk, & Mulki, 2010), little attention
has been given to the individual role emotional intelligence ability
2
(henceforth EI) plays in influencing employee creativity. This gap
likely results from initial theoretical consensus that EI and creativ-
ity are unrelated. For example, in their review of the EI literature,
Mayer, Roberts, and Barsade (2008) conclude that “EI also may
exhibit relations with social intelligence, but apparently not with
creativity” (p. 519). The logic underlying this consensus is that
because EI captures abilities in consensual or convergent thinking
to produce normative solutions to social and emotional situations
and because creativity represents the ability to formulate novel and
divergent ideas, then these constructs capture different cognitive
abilities that do not relate (Ivcevic, Brackett, & Mayer, 2007;
Zenasni & Lubart, 2009).
We propose this conclusion is premature. This is because its
logic is rooted in cognitive explanations of the link between EI and
creativity (e.g., differences in processing information) and largely
overlooks the affective mechanisms linking these constructs. Given
that a substantial amount of research focuses on affect (e.g.,
positive affect) as an antecedent to creativity (Amabile, Barsade,
Mueller, & Staw, 2005;Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2008) and that
EI directly pertains to the management and use of emotions
(Mayer et al., 2008), we would expect EI to relate to creativity
through its effects on affect. Yet, theory that specifies the
affective-based role EI plays in shaping employee creativity is
lacking.
To address this theoretical and practical gap, we draw upon
affective information processing (AIP) theory (Gohm & Clore,
1
Because our theory does not depend on differences in affective con-
structs, we use the words affect, emotions, and mood interchangeably.
Although these are all related, typically affect is used as an umbrella term
capturing emotions and moods, emotions are more short-lived states that
are tied to particular events, and moods are more prolonged and diffused
states (Barsade & Gibson, 2007;Brief & Weiss, 2002).
2
In our theory, we focus on ability-based emotional intelligence, which
represents a theoretically and empirically valid conceptualization of emo-
tional intelligence, as opposed to mixed-models or trait approaches that
combine characteristics of emotional abilities along with trait dispositions
(Côté, 2014;Joseph et al., 2014;Mayer et al., 2008).
This article was published Online First December 22, 2014.
Michael R. Parke, Myeong-Gu Seo, and Elad N. Sherf, Robert H. Smith
School of Business, University of Maryland.
We thank Dr. Subra Tangirala and Dr. Crystal Farh for their helpful
feedback and suggestions during the development of this article. We also
give special thanks to Dr. Paul Tesluk and Dr. Sirkwoo Jin for their
assistance and collaboration in collecting the data.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michael
R. Parke, Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, Van Munch-
ing Hall, College Park, Maryland, 20742. E-mail: mparke@rhsmith
.umd.edu
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Journal of Applied Psychology © 2014 American Psychological Association
2015, Vol. 100, No. 3, 917–934 0021-9010/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038452
917
