Emotional Intelligence among Business Consultants: A Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the levels of emotional intelligence (EI) of business consultants who work for a consulting firm in Bangkok, Thailand, and to compare the EI levels of these consultants based on gender and years in the industry. A questionnaire adapted from the theoretical framework of Goleman (1995) was completed by 80 business consultants. This instrument comprised of 45 items that can be grouped into fives EI competencies referred to as: (a) self-awareness, (b) self-regulation, (c) motivation, (d) empathy, and (e) social skills. The results were calculated in terms of percentages, mean scores, and standard deviations. T–test was also employed to determine the differences between levels of EI and the independent variables which are gender and years in the industry. The results revealed that the EI level of the business consultants was at a high level. However, there was no significant difference between levels of EI based on gender and years in the industry.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".