The Illusion of Emotional Intelligence

Emotional Intelligence (EI) is a concept that has been integrated into the lexicon of the corporate world. Many of these entities utilize this concept as part of their leadership development, while some companies have every employee undergo some form of training for it. In one survey, research showed that 42% of organizations worldwide implement training in Emotional Intelligence for senior management and leadership. It could be said that the vast majority of these operations rely heavily on data and research, while many of these entities, in particular, are within the domain of science industries, be they healthcare, engineering, academia, or economics, to name a few. 42% is staggering! Here is why: Emotional Intelligence is quite unscientific, and for these companies to be rooted in evidence-based research and science, it is bewildering that many of them rely on unscientific concepts like EI as part of their philosophies and professional development, particularly the development of their leadership.

Addressing the Resistance

In the past, asserting that EI is an invalid concept ruffled some feathers when I brought it to people's attention. Since I am not in the business of ruffling feathers (at least not for the sake of ruffling feathers), I will attempt to provide an explanation that encourages the reader to consider two things: 1) how the evidence alluded to in this article may conflict with their current beliefs on the matter, and 2) to critically evaluate the information and categorize it into their belief system properly. Before I expound on the illusion of Emotional Intelligence, I believe it is paramount to aid the reader in guarding against his or her bias towards EI. To put it frankly, I aim to prevent self-deception.

Self-Deception and the Illusory Correlation of EI and Leadership

We often associate particular experiences with our successful navigation of the world. Yet, we likey fail, more often than not, to examine our beliefs to assess if we are identifying correlations as causes. Correlation does not equal causation. Just as when we invest in a belief that may turn out to be maladaptive, professionals often invest time and money into training on invalid concepts (such as EI or the Myers-Briggs). Understandably, they tend to cherish the beliefs they have in such concepts. As a psychotherapist, one of the most basic tenets I have learned is that people do not like to have their cherished beliefs challenged. My experience with presenting to people the science behind the invalidation of concepts such as EI or the Myers-Briggs has often been met with the same reaction that many of my clients display when their cherished but maladaptive thinking has been challenged. At the risk of making an unfair comparison here, I believe it is noteworthy, nonetheless.

Self-deception is ignoring evidence (anomaly) that our current beliefs may be in error, and an anomaly is an unexpected event of unspecified significance that elicits general anxiety as a consequence of the unexpected or undesired disruption of goal-directed activity (Peterson et al., 2002). Self-deception–in the context of resistance to the notion that EI is invalid–occurs when one has been unexpectedly presented with information that conflicts with their positive beliefs that hold EI as a useful concept. Another factor is the illusory correlation, which is the tendency to erroneously infer incorrect information to be correct after repeated and frequent exposure (Chapman & Chapman,1969). Organizations have been bombarded with EI. Small wonder that 42% of them have implemented EI training for their senior management and leadership. It is as though virtually everyone nods their head yes when people talk about EI, but few are actually questioning if EI is valid. All it takes is a little research and one will see clearly that it is not. My aim here is not to convince you to simply buy into my argument but rather to examine it with a critical yet open mind.

The Research

Emotional Intelligence has been defined as "the ability to monitor one's own and others' emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use the information to guide one's thinking and actions" (Salovey & Mayer, 1990, p. 189). One of the major hangups with the concept of EI is that it is too encompassing and its constituents too varied to be narrowed down to one concept. In the following sections, I attempt to highlight the illusion of EI and point toward a more reliable, valid, and predictable model to replace EI.

EI Researchers

There is a common bias among researchers that compels them to perceive that collecting data on shorter, simpler measures account for incremental validity beyond currently established and valid measures. Researchers often believe they can create a magical measurement that is not accounted for in previously established personality models. In other words, it is akin to finding a piece of metal and, thinking you have discovered a new material. You name it metalite, only to learn later that it has already been discovered and that it is called iron.

Recognizing the Issues of EI

The alleged validity of EI research is based on constructs that have existed for a long time and are simply being relabeled and categorized. Virtually all such constructs are thoroughly established in highly reliable, valid, and predictable measures of personality. Additionally, there are very few legitimate research articles on EI. Only six of them have examined the validity of EI over cognitive ability and the Big Five personality model; none show that EI predicts leadership performance.

Who is doing the rating?

Another fallacy common in research supporting EI is that the research methods have generally produced a false impression that EI is substantially related to effective leadership (Harms, Et al., 2020). When ratings of EI and leadership came from the same source (self-ratings), the relationship between EI and transformational leadership was substantial. However, when ratings came from two sources (self-ratings and follower ratings), the relationship between the two constructs nearly disappeared. In other words, it is easy to manipulate associations between EI and leadership performance.

What EI actually is

EI may be best described as the Big Five Personality traits Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and Neuroticism (emotional stability). Agreeableness is the trait that captures the degree to which one negotiates well for others or oneself. Conscientiousness (industriousness and orderliness) captures one's proclivity to produce results through their work. Extraversion is made up of enthusiasm and assertiveness, with the latter being a strong predictor of success. Neuroticism is the trait in which the degree of our emotional stability influences our capacity to manage uncomfortable situations. Measuring these traits reliably predict who is most likely to become leaders, managers, directors, supervisors, vice presidents, and CEOs of organizations. Furthermore, it is not (entirely) a matter of being high or low in these traits but rather about the broadening or mastery of them.

Big Five Personality Model

The Big Five Personality Model is, in some ways, the second most reliable predictor for life success outcomes. It is second only to IQ, which is far and away the most reliable predictor. Therefore, whatever IQ you have, be grateful for it and honor it; it is a gift. However, it certainly does not account for everything. Broadening your personality to be more optimally matched with your environments and pursuits is one of the best ways you can maximize your growth and leadership skills. Mastering the personality traits will provide you with what the illusory concept of Emotional Intelligence erroneously–and perhaps dangerously– attempts to give you.

The Big Five Personality Model is the gold standard of personality measurements. Of these models, the Big Five Aspects Scale is perhaps the most valid AND easily accessible measures available. Others, like the Myers-Briggs, do not hold up to modern research. Of course, EI must be disregarded. And don't even bother with the Enneagram!

If you or your organization is interested in corporate training based on the Big Five personality model, click here to learn more.

References

Chapman, L. J., & Chapman, J. P. (1969). Illusory correlation as an obstacle to the use of valid psychodiagnostic signs. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 74(3), 271–280.

Harms, Peter & Crede, Marcus. (2010). Remaining Issues in Emotional Intelligence Research: Construct Overlap, Method Artifacts, and Lack of Incremental Validity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 3.

Davies M, Stankov L, Roberts RD. Emotional intelligence: in search of an elusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1998 Oct;75(4):989-1015. 

Peterson, J. B., Driver-Linn, E., & DeYoung, C. G. (2002). Self-deception and impaired categorization of anomaly. Personality and Individual Differences, 33(2), 327-340.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, 185-211.