Meeting With Rich Roberts

Unfinished....

Recently I met with with Rich Roberts and Philippa xxx at the Univesity of Sydney. The main topic was the Mayer Salovey (MS) model of emotional intelligence (EI), but this lead to many side discussions and debates. Roberts and his colleagues Moshe Zeidner and Gerry Matthews have written two articles in the Ameican Psychology Association (APA) journal, Emotion critiqueing the MS model of EI. Their articles are the most serious challenge to the MS model which I've seen. Having been a strong supporter of the MS model of EI and of the belief that "emotional intelligence" does exist, I felt a little defensive and argumentative during much of our meeting. Rich's sense of humor, willingness to listen and easy going personality helped minimize this defensiveness and helped me feel open to his criticisms, concerns and suggestions. I actually debated with him and Phillipa more than I wanted to and later regretted not being a better listener myself. After we talked I wondered how much he and Phillipa felt understood by me, from 0-10. My goal would be 10.

Below are some notes and comments arising from our first meeting.

We reached several areas of agreement. One of these is that belief that the Bar-On EQi and Goleman ECI 360 are not testing emotional intelligence and therefore should not be called emotional intelligence tests. Instead, these are simply personality tests which are being misleadiingly marketed as tests of EI. At this point in fact, I will go so far to say that the marketing of these tests as emotional intelligence tests has moved beyond misleading people to what I will call deceptive advertising. There is enough agreement in the academic community about this that I believe that if there were a consumer protection agency which monitored the activities of test marketers it would also label the marketing of Bar-On and Goleman's tests as deceptive advertising. At this point there is no such organization or group performing this service to the public, and organizations such as the APA have so far remained silent on this issue. The APA is to be credited, though, with inviting researchers such as Roberts and his colleagues to voice their strong objections to the current use and misuse of the term EI.

Another area of agreement is that people such as Bar-On and Goleman are hurting the field of emotional intelligence and, more generally, damaging the credibility of the psychology profession. This has been a concern of mine for some time now and I felt affirmed to learn that Roberts shared my feelings. We are afraid that when businesses and schools find out that what they have been told is emotional intelligence actually is not emotional intelligence, they will feel duped. They may feel resentful, cynical and skeptical of future research. They may lose a degree of respect for the entire field of psychology psychological assessment. The problem is not that we do not believe EI exits, the problem is the way it has been presented to the general public. While Roberts feels less certain that EI is a form of intelligence he does believe Mayer and Salovey have

I believe the concept of emotional intelligence is important. I believe it is important to the survival of the human species, not just to the "bottom line" in a Fortune 500 corporation. I do not want see people such as Reuvon Bar-On, Daniel Goleman and their marketing agents, MHS and the Hay Group, continue to damage the long term potential contribution of this field through their short term exploitation of it.

Roberts and I are concerned about how people will feel when people find out that most the claims which have been made about the benefits of possessing emotional intelligence, of developing it and of attending training courses on it have been exaggerated or fabricated in order for a few consultants to make money. This is a concern I expressed in my article for HR.com in 2001 and one which I have been voicing for the past several years on this site.

One of Roberts' main concerns was the way Mayer et al have decided what are the "correct" answers to their EI tests.

Individual differences in personality require different developmental approaches. Rich for example likes to joke, doesn't like confrontation. Uses sarcasm. Helps put people at ease with his jokes. This is a personality difference. It says nothing about his EI. Maybe the success that he has with his approach is reflective of his EI, or what he was taught -- or both.

S. Hein
April 11, 2002
Wombeyan Caves
New South Wales, Australia