During the past two decades, there have been very few human qualities that have been celebrated and glorified as much as emotional intelligence (EQ), defined as the ability to identify and manage one's own and other people's emotions. Although EQ was first introduced by academics in 1990, it was not until Daniel Goleman popularized the concept with his bestselling book in 1996 that the wider public, and particularly the business community, became EQ-euphoric. Part of the reasons for this euphoria were the widespread unpopularity of IQ, and Goleman's astute strategy to pitch EQ against it and capitalize on its perceived (and often not real) weaknesses. Indeed, most people hate the idea of completing complex numerical reasoning or logical thinking problems under extreme time pressure only to be told how smart they are, and in most cases that they are average, not least because there's only so much they can do about it other than celebrate or get annoyed or depressed. At the same time, IQ tests seem so abstract that it is hard for laypeople to understand that they can predict real-world outcomes, such as academic performance, job performance, and relationship success (even though they do).
But has EQ delivered to its promises? It depends on what version of EQ we have in mind. For most of its pioneers, EQ is a trainable ability that can be measured via objective performance tests; so broad in its scope that it includes virtually every positive competency ever proposed in business psychology (e.g., creativity, negotiations skills, empathy, leadership potential, and entrepreneurship). According to this view, EQ is always better when it's higher and there are, by definition, no negative consequences or downsides to having a high EQ. In contrast, most of the academic research - thousands of independent studies and several meta-analyses - suggest that EQ is just a sexy name for personality. More specifically, high EQ equates to higher emotional stability, extraversion, agreeableness, openness, and conscientiousness, or the common variance underlying the Big Five personality traits (which are the most widely researched personality traits and have been examined in thousands of papers). In line, the most reliable and predictive measures of EQ are just measures of the Big Five, combining the scores on the five different traits to produce an overall score that is best interpreted as social desirability, impression management, or rewardingness (being rewarding to deal with). Thus, no matter what Goleman et co tell you, the essence of EQ is emotional stability, likability, cool-headedness, and emotional resilience (being non-reactive and phlegmatic, like the Dalai Lama or the Queen of England). This is what the data indicate, and there's nothing wrong with that because this syndrome of traits predicts better health and wellbeing, employability, career success, and indeed leadership potential - you can find out more about this in my latest book.
That said, there's no shortage of leaders with low emotional intelligence, including some exceptionally successful ones: from Walt Disney to Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos, many of the most successful self-made entrepreneurs would probably score low on most EQ tests. Disney would habitually fall out with his leadership team and show little empathy towards his employees. He was also driven by anger and revenge. Jobs had many of the key characteristics of psychopathic and narcissistic individuals: deep entitlement, a tendency to retaliate aggressively upon being questioned, manipulativeness, as well as extreme excitability and volatility. Zuckerberg has managed to self-coach quite effectively in recent years but anyone who watched him nervously dripping in sweat on national TV will have realized his emotional stability is low (which means low EQ). Finally, though Bezos seems much more cerebral and socially skilled, he also appears to have low empathy; as his biography notes, it is harder for him "to be nice, than to be smart". Yet these outstanding entrepreneurs are unrepresentative of the overall population, and most people with similar deficits of EQ don't have the talents to compensate for those deficits. Therefore, the suggestion that one should emulate these tycoons by behaving in undesirable and un-empathetic ways is as mistaken as the suggestion that, since Einstein was not a great school pupil, we should try to encourage our kids to be bad school pupils (presumably so they can win a Nobel prize in physics). Most college drop-outs don't become successful entrepreneurs, and most people with low EQ don't become successful leaders, even if they are able to start and grow their own business effectively, which would put them in the 1% of the population.
But if we accept the scientific and data-driven fact that EQ is mostly a rehash of existing personality traits - and the most successful PR campaign personality has had to date, especially in the business world - then we must understand that there are, by definition, both good and bad implications associated with both low and high scores. Consider that even desirable personality traits, such as Emotional Stability, have negative implications: being too stable can drive you to underestimate potential threats and dangers, or come across as passionless, if not a bit dull. Likewise, traits that are generally associated with lower social status (e.g., introversion or conformity in the U.S., nonconformity in Singapore, conscientiousness in Argentina) still have positive implications, even in those same cultures. In fact, there are both conceptual and empirical reasons to suggest that high EQ may at times be disadvantageous, even if it mostly is advantageous. For example, if you hired employees and leaders on the basis of their creativity and innovation potential, you would end up recruiting people with lower rather than higher EQ more often than not - this goes back to the low EQ scores of the highly entrepreneurial individuals we discussed, as well as others who are often unemployable by traditional standards and yet at the same time they could be very helpful to organizations that are in desperate need of innovation. By the same token, some of the most driven and strategic leaders you will find will have lower than average EQ scores. Neuroticism (in many ways the opposite of EQ) can accelerate and enhance ambition like no other trait, and in exceptional achievers the best interpretation of their ambition is an inability to be satisfied with their achievements (largely thanks to their higher neuroticism). Finally, given that EQ is strongly and positively correlated with agreeableness (interpersonal sensitivity), it is to be expected that leaders with very high EQ will have trouble giving negative feedback to others, as well as executing for results. When you are too concerned with getting along and focused mostly on your subordinates' wellbeing, you may find it harder to challenge people and push them to perform to the highest level. Think of the Amazon culture - or at least how it was depicted by the New York Times - it is probably the strongest case study for a low EQ culture, but that is perhaps the secret to its success, particularly if the firm can effectively manage its hyper-driven, kick ass workforce.
To be clear: I am not advocating that we go from one extreme to another, as we would be generally worse off if we start selecting leaders with lower rather than higher EQ. There is clear evidence suggesting that on average higher EQ is associated with better leadership outcomes, and among the vast majority of leaders who are disengaging and alienating their teams and companies, lower EQ scorers are certainly overrepresented. However, an intellectually responsible and data-driven account of EQ must accept that under some circumstances lower scores may not be so problematic, and perhaps even useful. People have a tendency to dichotomize everything and classify things in a categorical way - either good or bad. We have low tolerance for ambiguity and little patience for nuances. But this approach is incompatible with the complex realities that characterize personality.
by Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic
Professor of Psychology at UCL and Columbia University, and the CEO of Hogan Assessments
forbes.com
