THE CLAIM Daniel Goleman, the father of EQ, claims, ‘emotional competence is twice as important as purely cognitive abilities’. Now ‘EQ is essential for OCM’ has become a mantra. THE EVIDENCE EQ addresses 3 skills: perceiving emotions, using emotion to guide thoughts & emotional regulation. But is EQ ability-based, trait-based or a mix of both? Nobody is sure. The trait model lacks any predictive validity on performance and the mixed model seems to include anything that isn’t cognitive ability (IQ). There is a weak correlation between EQ & transformational leadership & all models seem to have a moderate correlation with performance. However, at best, only the mixed model has some added value over IQ and the big 5 personality traits (mainly Conscientiousness & Emotional Stability), at worst ability models of EQ add no value over IQ. Conscientiousness helps perceive our emotions, IQ helps rationalise our emotions & Emotional Stability helps regulate emotions. It is the regulation of emotions that seems to tie EQ to change (improving performance). THE VERDICT Goleman’s claim seems to be untrue and EQ offers nothing more than IQ + Conscientiousness + Emotional Stability. If we want people to change, we should simply help them reflect on, rationalise & regulate their emotions.
Independent Thinker, Business Professor, Organizational Psychologist, OCM Expert
5 年What you are basically saying here is that EQ does not offer incremental validity over existing successful change measures. This may indeed be true, however what specific measure of change success exists? EQ can be said to be a very powerful predictor of social deviance, e.g. murder, because it has been specifically compared to other predictors. This cannot be said as we, as of yet, have not identified valid and reliable change success factors (what makes a change successful). What defines a successful change, is still somewhat subjective. Now, can EQ be used to predict other behaviors, e.g. team cohesion, that are also shown to be positively correlated to previously identified change behaviors where EQ is a possible mitigating factor? Yes. Indeed this has been done with many positive change behaviors, including conscientiousness and emotional stability. Sadly, many in business practice (HR specifically) often use mitigating/moderating factors in terms of causality. This is what I believe has happened with EQ and its mixed derivative. You are absolutely spot on with your closing statement.